Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

CIVIL CONTINGENCIES FUND, 1935.

Copy ordered, of
Accounts of the Civil Contingencies Fund, 1935, showing (1) the Receipts and Payments in connection with the Fund in the year ended the 31st day of March, 1936; (2) the Distribution of the Capital of the Fund at the commencement and close of the year; together with Copy of the Correspondence with the Comptroller and Auditor-General thereon."—[Lieut.-Colonel Colville.]

PUBLIC DEPARTMENTS (GROSS AND NET COST, 1935).

Copy ordered, of
Statement showing the Gross and Net total Cost of the Civil and Revenue Departments, and the Navy, Army, and Air Services, for the year ended the 31st day of March, 1936."—[Lieut.-Colonel Colville.]

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

PRIVATE BILL PETITIONS (STANDING ORDERS COMPLIED WITH).

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the Petition for the following Bill the Standing Orders have been complied with, namely,

North Devon Electric Power.

ABERYSTWYTH RURAL DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL,

'to empower the Aberystwyth Rural District Council to acquire the reservoir known as Llyn-Craig-y-pistyll and to construct waterworks, to make further provision in regard to their water undertaking and the local government of their district, to amend the Acts relating to the supply of water by the Aberystwyth Corporation; and for other purposes," presented, and read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time.

BARKING CORPORATION BILL,

"to empower the Mayor, Aldermen and Burgesses of the borough of Barking to acquire lands for housing purposes; and for other purposes." presented, and read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time.

BRIGHTON HOVE AND WORTHING GAS BILL,

"to confer upon the Brighton Hove and Worthing Gas Company powers with reference to the making of provision for supplies of gas in certain cases; and for other purposes." presented, and read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time.

BUCKS WATER BILL,

"to constitute a Joint Board consisting of representatives of the County Council of the Administrative County of Buckingham and the Rural District Councils of Aylesbury Buckingham Wing and Winslow; to vest in the said Board the water undertakings of certain of the constituent authorities; to authorise the Board to execute works and to supply water and for other purposes," presented, and read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time.

CARDIFF EXTENSION BILL,

"to extend the boundaries of the City and County Borough of Cardiff and for purposes incidental thereto," presented, and read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time.

DUNSTABLE GAS AND WATER BILL,

"to make new provisions as to the capital of the Dunstable Gas and Water Company; to extend the limits of the Company for the supply of gas; to authorise the construction of additional waterworks and the raising of additional capital; and for other purposes," presented, and read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time.

GENERAL CEMETERY BILL,

"to confer further powers upon The General Cemetery Company and for other purposes," presented, and read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time.

GOSPORT WATER BILL,

"to authorise the Gosport Waterworks Company to construct additional waterworks; to extend the limits of supply and


to enlarge the capital and borrowing powers of the Company; to confer further powers upon the Company; and for other purposes," presented, and read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time.

GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY BILL,

"for conferring further powers upon the Great Western Railway Company in respect of their own undertaking and upon that Company and the London Midland and Scottish Railway Company in respect of an undertaking in which they are jointly interested and upon the Great Western and Great Central Railways Joint Committee and for other purposes," presented, and read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time.

GRIMSBY CORPORATION (GRIMSBY AND DISTRICT WATER, ETC.) BILL,

"to incorporate a Joint Board consisting of representatives of the Corporations of Grimsby and Cleethorpes and the Rural District Council of Grimsby; to transfer to and vest in the Board the undertaking of the Great Grimsby Waterworks Company, Limited; to empower the Board to construct waterworks to supply water and to acquire lands; to empower the Mayor, Aldermen and Burgesses of the Borough of Grimsby to execute street improvements and to acquire lands for those and other purposes; to make further provisions with respect to the finance of the Borough of Grimsby; and for other purposes," presented, and read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time.

HASTINGS CORPORATION GENERAL POWERS BILL,

"to empower the Mayor, Aldermen and Burgesses of the Borough of Hastings to construct additional waterworks and to acquire lands; to extend their limits for the supply of water; to confer upon them further powers with respect to their water and electricity undertakings; to empower them to purchase in certain circumstances the undertaking of the Hastings Tramway Company; to make further provision for the improvement, health, good government and finance of the Borough; and for other purposes," presented, and read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time.

HUDDERSFIELD CORPORATION BILL,

"to provide for the transfer of the Holme Reservoirs to the Mayor, Aldermen and Burgesses of the Borough of Huddersfield and for the transfer of one of those reservoirs from the said Mayor, Aldermen and Burgesses to the Holmfirth Urban District Council; to authorise the said Mayor, Aldermen and Burgesses to construct waterworks and to confer further powers upon them with reference to the supply of water, gas and electricity; to provide for the transfer to the said Mayor, Aldermen and Burgesses of the Lindley Mechanics Hall and to make further provision for the local government of the borough; and for other purposes," presented, and read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time.

LANCASHIRE ELECTRIC POWER BILL,

"to confer further powers on the Lancashire Electric Power Company; and for other purposes," presented, and read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time.

LIVERPOOL EXCHANGE BILL,

"to authorise the sale of the undertaking of the Liverpool Exchange Company Limited to confer further powers upon that Company and the purchaser of the undertaking and for other purposes," presented, and read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time.

LONDON AND NORTH EASTERN RAILWAY BILL,

"to empower the London and North Eastern Railway Company to construct a railway and other works and to acquire lands; to make provision with respect to the Nottingham Canal of the said Company; and for other purposes," presented, and read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time.

LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL,

"to confer further powers upon the London County Council and other authorities; and for other purposes," presented, and read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time.

LONDON MIDLAND AND SCOTTISH RAILWAY BILL,

"to empower the London Midland and Scottish Railway Company to construct works and to acquire lands; to modify


rates dues and charges at Holyhead Harbour; and for other purposes," presented, and read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time.

LONDON PASSENGER TRANSPORT BOARD BILL,

"to empower the London Passenger Transport Board to provide certain services of trolley vehicles; to construct new works; to acquire lands; to extend the lime for the compulsory purchase of certain lands and the completion of certain works; to empower the Urban District Council of Uxbridge to construct a new street and to acquire lands; to confer further powers on the Board; and for other purposes," presented, and read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time.

NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE CORPORATION BILL,

"to empower the Lord Mayor Aldermen and Citizens of the City and County of Newcastle-upon-Tyne to grant retiring allowances to their employees in certain cases; and for other purposes," presented, and read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time.

NEWQUAY AND DISTRICT WATER BILL,

"to empower the Newquay and District Water Company to extend their limits for the supply of water; to construct further works; to empower them to raise further capital; to confer further powers upon the Company; and for other purposes," presented, and read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time.

NORTH METROPOLITAN ELECTRIC POWER SUPPLY BILL,

"to transfer to the North Metropolitan Electric Power Supply Company the undertakings of the Harrow Electric Light and Power Company Limited; to make new provision as to the rights of purchase of the Harrow Urban District Council; and for other purposes," presented, and read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time.

NORTH STAFFORDSHIRE ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD BILL,

"to establish a Joint Board consisting of representatives of certain local authorities in the Counties of Stafford Chester and Salop; to confer powers upon the Board with respect to the purchase of

certain transport undertakings and with respect to the running of public service and other vehicles; and for other purposes," presented, and read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time.

ROCHDALE CORPORATION BILL,

"to confer further powers upon the Corporation of Rochdale with respect to their water gas electricity and markets undertakings; to make better provision for the health local government and finance of the borough; and for other purposes," presented, and read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time.

ROTHERHAM CORPORATION BILL,

"to empower the Mayor Aldermen and Burgesses of the county borough of Rotherham to construct street improvements and to acquire land for that and other purposes; to make further provision with regard to their water, gas, electricity, transport, cemetery, and market undertakings and to make further provision with regard to the health, local government and improvement of the borough; and for other purposes," presented, and read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time.

SADDLEWORTH URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL,

"to provide for the variation of the provisions of Section 9 of the Rating and Valuation Act, 1925, in its application to the Urban District of Saddleworth; and for other purposes," presented, and read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time.

SHEFFIELD CORPORATION BILL,

"to extend the boundaries of the City of Sheffield and for purposes incidental thereto; to transfer to the Corporation of that city the South Yorkshire Mental Hospital of the West Riding of Yorkshire Mental Hospitals Board; to authorise that Corporation to construct street improvements and additional tramways; to make provision for the protection of their aerodrome; to confer further powers upon them with respect to their electricity undertaking and with regard to the health improvement, good government and finance of the city; and for other purposes," presented, and read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time.

SOUTHAMPTON CORPORATION BILL,

"to empower the Mayor, Aldermen and Burgesses of the Borough of Southampton to provide and work trolley vehicle services and to acquire lands and to make further provision with regard to the health, local government and improvement of the borough and for other purposes," presented, and read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time.

SOUTHERN RAILWAY BILL,

"to empower the Southern Railway Company to construct a Railway and other Works and to acquire Lands; to extend the time for the completion of certain Works and the compulsory purchase of certain Lands; and for other purposes," presented, and read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time.

STAFFORDSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL,

"to confer further powers upon the Staffordshire County Council; to make further provision with respect to the health, local government and finance of the County of Stafford; and for other purposes," presented, and read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time.

STAFFORDSHIRE POTTERIES WATER BOARD BILL,

"to confer further powers upon the Staffordshire Potteries Water Board; to empower the Board to construct further Waterworks; to redefine the limits of the Board for the supply of water; to make further provision with regard to the water undertaking of the Board and the supply of water by them; to amend the Acts of the Board; and for other purposes," presented, and read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time.

TORQUAY CORPORATION BILL,

"to empower the Corporation of Torquay to execute street works and harbour and sea front improvements and to acquire and develop lands; to confer further powers upon the Corporation with respect to the local government of the borough; and for other purposes," presented, and read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time.

WADEBRIDGE RURAL DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL,

"to confer powers on the Wadebridge Rural District Council with reference to

the construction of waterworks and the supply of water; and for other purposes," presented, and read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time.

WANDSWORTH AND DISTRICT GAS BILL,

"to empower the Wandsworth and District Gas Company to raise additional capital; and for other purposes," presented, and read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time.

WATFORD CORI'ORATION BILL,

"to empower the Mayor Aldermen and Burgesses of the Borough of Watford to acquire part of the undertaking of the Rickmansworth and Uxbridge Valley Water Company; to make better provision with respect to the laying and maintenance of pipes for the supply of water by the said Mayor Aldermen and Burgesses and for purposes connected therewith; to confer further powers upon them with reference to their water and electricity undertakings; to make further provision with regard to the health, local government and improvement of the borough and for other purposes," presented, and read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time.

WEST HAM CORPORATION BILL,

"to authorise the Mayor Aldermen and Burgesses of the County Borough of West Ham to execute street works and to acquire lands for those and other purposes; to extend the time for the completion of certain works and the compulsory acquisition of certain lands; to confer further powers upon the Corporation and to make further and better provision for the health local government improvement and finance of the said County Borough; and for other purposes," presented, and read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY.

PALESTINE RESERVISTS (EMPLOYMENT).

Captain Ramsay: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will collect and publish the names and addresses of


all the firms which have refused to reengage the reservists who recently were compelled to leave their employment in order to go to Palestine?

The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Duff Cooper): I doubt if the compilation of an exhaustive list is feasible, while it would be unfair to those employers who have been prevented, by circumstances beyond their control, from taking reservists back into employment.

Captain Ramsay: If the right hon. Gentleman cannot see his way to publish the names and addresses, will he consider the advisability of making them available for Members of this House, so that they can take what action they may think fit in any particular case?

Mr. Cooper: I can assure the hon. and gallant Member that as far as I am aware no employers have deliberately refused to take these men back into their employment. Some of them had temporary employment only and in some cases works had closed down while the men were absent. In nearly every case that I have investigated the employers have done their best to reinstate the men.

Miss Ward: asked the Secretary of State for War how many of the 500 Army reservists now unemployed on their return from Palestine were in employment when called up for service?

Sir Robert Young: asked the Secretary of State for War how many of the reservists returned from Palestine were re-engaged in their jobs; how many have found new situations; and how many who were in employment before going to Palestine are now unemployed?

Mr. Cooper: Of 2,145 reservists who have communicated with the War Office since their return from Palestine, 1,600 are recorded as having been in employment when called up, and at least 1,134 of these have been reinstated by their former employers. A further 303 are known to have secured other employment. Three hundred and one of the 2,145 reservists were registered on 25th January last as unemployed; 79 of these were in employment when called up.

Sir R. Young: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that the public ought to know the employers' reasons for not reinstating them?

Mr. Cooper: As I pointed out in reply to previous supplementary questions, the employers in nearly every case have done their very best to employ these men. There are more of these men in employment than at the time when they went out to Palestine. There are 200 more in employment now than last week, and 400 more than at the time when this question was first raised some weeks ago.

Mr. Charles Williams: Are the Government considering taking into their employment an additional number of these men?

Mr. Cooper: I have not made any particular effort to get these men into Government employment, and I do not know whether they would qualify for Government employment, but the figures really are not unsatisfactory.

Mr. Williams: Will the right hon. Gentleman put pressure on Government Departments to take on more of these men?

VOCATIONAL TRAINING.

Mr. Bellenger: asked the Secretary of State for War whether serving soldiers undergoing vocational training before their return to civil life are required to make any financial contribution towards the cost of such training, and, if so, how much?

Mr. Cooper: Yes, Sir. The standard fees range from 5s. a week for a private or lance-corporal to 10s. a week for a warrant officer, Class I, with half rates for courses in dairy, general or pig farming.

Mr. Bellenger: Has the right hon. Gentleman this question under review, with the object of doing away with these charges and thereby making the Service more attractive?

Mr. Cooper: Yes, Sir. The question is under review.

Mr. Shinwell: Ought not the training to be reckoned as part of the remuneratory service rendered by the State to the soldiers, who have themselves rendered service to the State?

Mr. Cooper: That is another way of putting it.

RECRUITS (TRAINING AND NOURISHMENT EXPERIMENT).

Mr. Bellenger: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he can make a


statement on the experiment of special training and nourishment for certain selected recruits under standard; and whether he proposes to extend the experiment to include large numbers of recruits now rejected as unfit?

Mr. Cooper: At the end of the initial three months' training, 31 of the 33 recruits who had, been selected for experiment were adjudged to be fit to start the normal recruits' course and were passed to their regimental depots for this purpose; 24 have since been passed as up to standard, while seven, who have not yet reached normal standard but have made such progress as to justify their retention, are under special observation at their depots. The experiment is regarded as successful, and its practical application on a larger scale is under consideration.

Mr. Lambert: Does this nourishment include frozen meat?

Mr. J. J. Davidson: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us any indication as to the approximate weekly cost in keeping these men in nourishment, to maintain the standard?

Mr. Cooper: I cannot, without notice.

Mr. George Griffiths: Now that the Minister has proved that the diet with which he has been experimenting since 13th October is good, with margarine left out, will he see that everybody in the Army gets butter?

Miss Ward: Will the right hon. Gentleman hand over the text of that experiment to the Ministry of Labour, as it will be very useful for dealing with people in the Special Areas from the point of view of nutrition?

ESTIMATES (MEMORANDUM).

Mr. Mander: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will consider the advisability, when the Army Estimates are introduced in 1937, of including in the explanatory paper a reference to the fact that the armed forces are required inter alia for the carrying out of the obligations undertaken in connection with the Covenant of the League of Nations?

Mr. Cooper: Yes, Sir. I will consider how far a general statement as to the

purposes for which the Army is maintained can suitably be included in the Memorandum in question.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that recruitment would be increased if recruits were told that they would be required mainly for the defence of their own homes?

UNIFORMS.

Captain Macnamara: asked the Secretary of State for War when the new blue or green uniforms are to be issued to the Regular and Territorial armies?

Mr. Cooper: Arrangements have been made for the supply of the blue or green uniforms to those troops taking part in the Coronation parade in London, but no decision has yet been reached regarding the general issue of the uniforms.

Mr. Bellenger: Will the right hon. Gentleman include red in the colours, so as to make it really patriotic?

THE CORONATION (LONDON TERRITORIAL REPRESENTATION).

Captain Macnamara: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware of the great disappointment among London Territorial units that only a small party from each is to take part in the Coronation parade; and whether, in view of the fact that county units have local celebrations, whereas London units do not, and that London units worked hard at the Jubilee and bore the brunt of the duties at His late Majesty's funeral at short notice, he will reconsider the question, so that all serving Territorials in London may take part in the Coronation ceremonies, if they wish to do so?

Mr. Cooper: I think that some misunderstanding may have arisen in the minds of certain London Territorial units with regard to the true facts of this matter. The street lining will involve approximately 18,500 men, apart from the representatives of the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force, and the Territorial Army will provide more than 50 per cent. of this number. As it is desirable that every Territorial Unit in the country should be represented at this National ceremony it will be obvious that only limited detachments can be taken from each unit, and it has been decided that all Territorial units shall be treated on an equal basis.

Colonel Ropner: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that throughout the Provinces among all ranks of the Territorial Army there is general satisfaction with the arrangements which are being made?

UNEMPLOYED RESERVISTS.

Miss Ward: asked the Secretary of State for War the total number of Army reservists now unemployed?

Mr. Cooper: Inquiries were recently made of 113,793 Army reservists regarding their employment situation. 7,782 failed to reply, but of the balance 88,954, or 84 per cent., were recorded as being in employment, and 17,057, or 16 per cent., unemployed.

Miss Ward: Am I to understand that this is the result of special investigations, and that the right hon. Gentleman does not receive periodical reports from the Ministry of Labour?

Mr. Cooper: We keep in touch with the Ministry of Labour all the time as regards the employment of ex-service men.

Mr. Lawson: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many of these men are long-term unemployed men?

Mr. Cooper: I cannot tell the hon. Member, without notice.

MAJORS (HALF-PAY).

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: asked the Secretary of State for War how many officers of the rank of major have, during the past six months, been placed on half-pay and informed that they are not likely to be employed again; how many of such officers had been recommended for command prior to being placed on half-pay; whether the half-pay of such officers is less than their retired pay would be; and whether by being placed on half-pay, they are deprived of the opportunity of earning the maximum pension for their rank?

Mr. Cooper: Between 1st August, 1936, and 31st January, 1937, 71 majors were due to be placed on the half-pay list and were informed that they were not likely to be re-employed. Of this number, eight majors had previously been considered as possibly suitable eventually for command but failed to be selected when the occasion arose. Generally speaking, the rate of half-pay would be less than the rate of retired pay, and in fact the majority of

the officers applied to retire instead of being placed on the half-pay list. With eight exceptions the officers had insufficient service for the maximum rate of retired pay in the rank of major, but, unless he is actually superseded, no major who is not selected as suitable for promotion is placed on half-pay until he has completed at least three years' service in the rank and so earned a major's pension, and has attained age 45.

Mr. Davidson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the bigger the number of officers he places on half-pay the better he will please hon. Members on these benches?

GENERALS (ACTIVE LIST).

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: asked the Secretary of State for War what is the average age, in their several categories, of officers of the rank of general at present on the active list?

Mr. Cooper: The average ages, by categories, of generals of the combatant arms who are at present on the active list, are: Generals, 62 years; Lieut.-Generals, 58 years; Major-Generals, 56 years.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether those averages are higher or lower than in 1914?

Mr. Cooper: I cannot say, without notice.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND.

OLD EDINBURGH (PRESERVATION).

Mr. Hannah: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he can make any further statement about the preservation of Old Edinburgh, particularly Tailors' Hall?

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Elliot): I met representatives of the corporation on 25th January and have now under consideration certain suggestions which they made to me in connection with the preservation of buildings of architectural interest affected by their housing operations in Old Edinburgh. I have been considering the question of Tailors' Hall Buildings and have been in further communication with the corporation. I regret, however, that I am not yet in a position to make any statement on the subject.

Mr. Guy: May I ask that the right hon. Gentleman will not allow any question of amenities to interfere unduly with the campaign for rehousing the people in decent houses?

Mr. Hannah: That does not apply to Tailors' Hall.

FARM WORKERS, FIFE (UNEMPLOYMENT ASSISTANCE).

Mr. T. Johnston: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that unemployed farm workers in the county of Fife are being informed that the public assistance committee cannot make supplementary payments to the amounts given under the new insurance scales for unemployed farm workers; whether he has considered a case referred to him in which an unemployed farm worker who, previous to being included in the insurance scheme, would have received 29s. per week able-bodied relief is now only entitled to an insurance rate of 24s., and, as this is insufficient for his family needs, has had to be offered detention in the poorhouse; and whether he can take steps to ensure that farm workers who, with their employers, pay insurance premiums will not now be worse off than before the insurance scheme was inaugurated?

Mr. Elliot: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative; each application for public assistance falls to be considered on its merits. I am informed that only one application from a man in receipt of benefit under the Unemployment Insurance (Agriculture) Act, 1936, has so far been received by the Fife county public assistance committee. This would appear to be the case referred to in the second part of the question. The man has lodged with the Department of Health for Scotland a statutory complaint and they are at present in communication with the local authority on the matter. I shall communicate with the right hon. Member when a decision is reached.

Mr. Johnston: In view of the urgency of this question to all farm servants in Scotland, will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to expedite a decision, and, if necessary, introduce legislation as quickly as possible?

Mr. Elliot: I will do my utmost to expedite a decision. Obviously I cannot suggest legislation until I know the decision.

Mr. Buchanan: Is it not the case that until the coming into operation of Part 2 of the Act people on standard benefit, including agricultural workers, can have their payments augmented by the public assistance committee if they so desire, and that the Fife public assistance committee could have done so in this case, if they so desired?

Mr. Elliot: That is what I have said. I have said that the answer to the first part of the question is in the negative; that people in the county of Fife are not being told that the public assistance committee cannot make supplementary payments.

Mr. Johnston: Do I understand that the Fife County Council are acting in contravention of the Statute?

Mr. Elliot: No, Sir. I was asked whether unemployed farm workers in the county of Fife are being informed that the public assistance committee cannot make supplement4ry payments. I said that the answer was in the negative.

Mr. Johnston: But in this specific case they have done so.

JUVENILE COURT, MARYHILL.

Mr. Davidson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) the total number of cases dealt with and the number of convictions in the juvenile court for Maryhill division for the years 1935 and 1936, respectively;
(2) the total amount of fines imposed in the juvenile court of Maryhill division for the years 1935 and 1936, respectively?

Mr. Elliot: As the reply involves a table of figures I will circulate it, with the hon. Member's permission, in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Davidson: When circulating the report will the right hon. Gentleman keep in mind the fact that I received a promise from the late Secretary of State to make an inquiry in regard to this division as to the large number of juveniles who were being prosecuted?

Mr. Elliot: If the hon. Member has any representations to make to me after seeing the answer, I shall be glad to receive them.

Following is the table of figures:


Year.
Number of cases tried.
Number of cases in which persons dealt with found guilty of an offence.
Total amount of fines imposed.





£
s.
d.


1935
318
265
44
18
0


1936
347
288
53
18
0

"RED BIDDY."

Mr. Davidson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he contemplates taking any action to regulate or abolish the sale of the red wine commonly called "Red Biddy" in Scotland?

Mr. Elliot: The ordinary statutory regulations governing the sale of wine apply to the sale of the cheap red wine known as "RED BIDDY." and further restrictions upon its sale could not, I fear, prevent anyone from subsequently mixing it with methylated spirit and drinking the concoction. I have no reason to believe that this concoction which is also known as "Red Biddy" is on sale in any area. Any solution of the problem of methylated spirit drinking would, I think, have to be on different lines. I am not in a position to make any statement about legislation, but the question is at present under careful review.

Sir Nicholas Grattan-Doyle: Has the beverage known as "Red Biddy" ever been analysed?

Mr. Elliot: Often.

Mr. Davidson: Cannot steps be taken with regard to the sale of this very dangerous liquid, to make it saleable only by chemists, and remove it from public houses altogether?

Mr. Elliot: The question of methylated spirit drinking was the substance of a Bill introduced into the House some time ago, and it is that question, the drinking of methylated spirits, which is receiving my attention.

Mr. Gallacher: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that "Red Biddy" and methylated spirits are used together, and that they are creating havoc, absolute physical and moral havoc, among the people?

Mr. Elliot: Yes, but the problem, obviously is the injury that is caused by the drinking of methylated spirits. It is the sale of methylated spirits which is the necessary part to be controlled.

Mr. Davidson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this question, particularly in Glasgow, in many of the low public houses there, is a direct menace to the mental welfare of the people, and in his review will he take the question of the drinking of red wine into immediate consideration with a view to dealing with the problem drastically?

Mr. Elliot: I am aware of the problem, and not long ago I had a conversation with Lord Salversen. The difficulty is that of controlling the sale of methylated spirits which does the injury when it is mixed with red wine or any other beverage.

HOUSING.

Mr. Guy: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has investigated the merits of the poured concrete or corolite type of house; and whether he is prepared to ask local authorities to consider this type of construction in cases where there is a local shortage of bricklayers?

Mr. Elliot: Yes, Sir; I have investigated the merits of the poured concrete type of house, and I am prepared to give careful consideration to any proposals by local authorities for the building of such houses.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY.

NORTH STAFFORDSHIRE (STATISTICS).

Mr. Ellis Smith: asked the Secretary for Mines the amounts paid in royalties in the North Staffordshire area during 1925, 1930, 1934, and 1935, respectively?

The Secretary for Mines (Captain Crookshank): The estimated amount paid by colliery owners in North Staffordshire in royalties and wayleaves (including the rental value of freehold mineral where worked by the proprietors) was in 1925, £84,000; in 1930, £102,000; in 1934, £109,000 and in 1935, £112,000.

Mr. Smith: asked the Secretary for Mines the number of miners injured in the North Staffordshire area in 1935 and the causes of the accidents; what number of visits were made underground in the area


by inspectors of mines; and how many visits were made after the termination of the shifts?

Captain Crookshank: For the answer to the first part of his Question I would refer the hon. Member to page 186 of the Annual Report of my Department for 1935. As regards the second part, the total number of inspections made underground was 602. I am not sure to what the hon. Member is referring in the last part of his question, but if he desires to know the number of inspections on the day, afternoon and night shifts, the figures are 498, 36 and 68 respectively.

FIREDAMP DETECTORS.

Mr. E. Smith: asked the Secretary for Mines whether he is satisfied with the progress made in the introduction of firedamp detectors; can he state the percentage of collieries that have installed a complement of automatic gas-detectors since the order came into force in 1935; and can the percentage be given of each mining area?

Captain Crookshank: As the hon. Member is aware, flame safety lamps are recognised as firedamp detectors and the answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. With regard to the second and third parts, the number of colliery companies which have installed automatic firedamp detectors to the number of five or more, is 22, of which six have installed them since 1st October, 1935, when the Firedamp Detector Regulations came into force. In addition, a number of detectors have been purchased by local coalowners' associations and moved from colliery to colliery for trial.

Mr. Smith: Is the Minister satisfied, and, if not, what steps is he going to take to recommend the introduction of more effective machinery?

Captain Crookshank: Perhaps the hon. Member has overlooked the fact that some time ago I set up a committee to investigate the problem, and the committee is now taking evidence.

STRANGEWAYS COLLIERY, HINDLEY.

Mr. Rhys Davies: asked the Secretary for Mines the reasons for the recent closing down of Strangeways Colliery, Hindley; the number of persons thrown out of work thereby; and whether there is any possibility of this pit re-opening?

Captain Crookshank: I am informed that this colliery was closed owing to the exhaustion of all the principal seams; the number of men employed prior to closing was 462; as only some thin upper seams are left, it is unlikely that the colliery will be re-opened.

Mr. Davies: In view of the fact that this is the seventeenth colliery which has been closed in this neighbourhood in the last eight years, and that there is ample evidence that there is plenty of coal underground in the neighbourhood, cannot the Secretary for Mines do something to re-open some of these pits?

Captain Crookshank: The question refers to one particular pit, and as I said, there are only some thin upper seams left, and it is not likely that the pit will be re-opened.

MINERS' LAMPS (COST).

Mr. Tinker: asked the Secretary for Mines whether he is in a position to state whether all, or how many, mineworkers are called upon to pay for the artificial light they use to follow their employment; and can he ascertain what is the annual cost to each worker where he is called upon to pay?

Captain Crookshank: I am aware that in some cases mine workers are called upon to bear some or all of the cost in respect of lamps, but the practice is by no means universal or uniform where it exists. I regret that I have no statistical information.

Mr. Tinker: Cannot the hon. and gallant Member find out for me the number of pits where this is being done? Is it not possible for the inspectors to find this out?

Captain Crookshank: It would be a big undertaking, and they have considerable duties to carry out in the interests of safety.

Mr. G. Griffiths: Is it not a fact that the cost is 6d. per week, which is 26s. a year out of their money?

Captain Crookshank: I have no statistical information, and I cannot confirm or deny the information of the hon. Member.

WAGE EARNERS (STATISTICS).

Mr. Batey: asked the Secretary for Mines the average weekly earnings of all


workmen employed in the coal mines of Great Britain, the output per shift, and the number of persons employed for the years 1935 and 1936?

Captain Crookshank: As the reply involves a number of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate them in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

—
Great Britain.


1935.
1936 (Provisional).


1.
Average Weekly Cash Earnings of all wage-earners employed.
£2
5s.
6d:
£2
9s.
10d.


2.
Output of Saleable coal per manshift worked
…
23·35 cwts.
23·46


3.
Average Number of wage-earners employed
…
754,300
756,000


NOTE.—The particulars of cash earnings shown above do not include the value of allowances in kind which amounted on the average to 1s. 10d. per week in 1935 and are estimated to have been. 1s. 11d. per week in 1936.

NATIONAL COMMITTEE OF INVESTIGATION.

Mr. Gordon Macdonald: asked the Secretary for Mines the number of complaints that have been dealt with by the National Committee of Investigation set up under Section 5 of the Coal Mines Act, 1930; and in how many cases have the complaints been substantiated?

Captain Crookshank: Two complaints have been lodged with the National Committee of Investigation since it was set up in 1930. One complaint lodged in March, 1931, was rejected by the committee. The other complaint, lodged about two weeks ago, is under investigation.

HARWORTH COLLIERY (DISPUTE).

Mr. G. Macdonald: asked the Secretary for Mines what action he is taking to bring about a settlement of the dispute at Harworth colliery, Nottinghamshire?

Captain Crookshank: I have at present nothing to add to the answer I gave to a question by the hon. Member for Workington {Mr. Cape) last Tuesday.

Mr. Macdonald: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that the delay in reaching a settlement is mainly due to the eviction of hundreds of men in this area, and in view of that will he exert extra pressure to bring about a settlement?

Mr. Bellenger: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware of the fact which has just been brought to his notice, that

Colonel Ropner: Have the average weekly earnings risen?

Captain Crookshank: Yes, Sir, the average weekly cash earnings of all wage earners employed have risen from £2 5s. 6d. in 1935 to 2 9s. 10d. (provisional figure) last year.

The reply is as follows.

the colliery company is obtaining many orders against the tenants of these houses, that this is further aggravating the dispute and is likely to cause serious trouble, and will he not take some early action?

Captain Crookshank: There are many aspects of this problem, but I would prefer not to make any statement at present.

Mr. Shinwell: Are we to understand that the Government can take no action to put a stop to the tyrannical conduct of these coalowners, and are we to understand that men in this country are not to be permitted to join whatever trade union they desire?

Mr. Lawson: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman pay special attention to the question of the attempt of these coal-owners to evict these men, and is he aware that there has been no such eviction in Great Britain for nearly half a century, and that public opinion would overwhelmingly condemn any such action?

CONTRACT PRICES.

Mr. Short: asked the Secretary for Mines whether he will make a statement showing the amount of money accruing to the mine owners to date as a result of the voluntary increase in contract prices; the total contribution made to wages; and what relation this figure has to the total wage increase?

Captain Crookshank: I am informed that during the nine months, 1st January to 30th September, 1936, the total amount of the special increases in wages resulting from the agreement reached in January, 1936, was £4,318,000 while the amount received by the coal owners from voluntary increases in contract prices was £1,712,000. Figures for the last three months of last year are not available.

BULLCROFT COLLIERY, DONCASTER (ACCIDENT).

Mr. Short: asked the Secretary for Mines whether he is aware that Kenneth Oliver, aged 14 years, employed at the Bullcroft Colliery, Doncaster, was fatally injured on 13th January; that he had been employed six days prior to the accident and was engaged in uncoupling tubs; whether he had received any training; and whether the Coal Mines Regulations provide for such training?

Captain Crookshank: Yes, Sir, and I understand that the facts were as stated by the hon. Member. As regards the latter part of the question, the boy had not attended the voluntary safety classes, but he had been instructed by the colliery safety officer in the proper method of coupling and uncoupling tubs. Although he was working under the general supervision of an adult haulage hand and was required to uncouple tubs only when the set was standing, such work was not, in my opinion, suitable for a boy who had only been at the pit for six days, and I understand that the management have made better arrangements for the future. The Coal Mines General Regulations do not prescribe any course of training for boys entering the industry, but, as the hon. Member will be aware, much progress has been made on a voluntary basis.

Mr. Short: Will the question of accidents to children of these tender years come before the Commission that is now dealing with safety in mines, and may we expect a recommendation from it upon this matter?

Captain Crookshank: I cannot say anything about any recommendation which the Royal Commission may make, but the evidence which has been put before the Commission has very forcibly brought to its notice the whole question of the safety of boys in the mining industry.

EMPIRE SETTLEMENT.

Mr. De Chair: asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he is aware that a resolution was passed by an overwhelming majority of the Legislative Assembly of the province of Saskatchewan on 27th February, 1936, urging the Canadian Government to get into touch with His Majesty's Government in Great Britain with a view to putting forward a scheme for the voluntary redistribution of the white peoples of the Empire; and whether, in view of this official expression of opinion from one of the Canadian Provinces, he will reconsider the question of British migration to that country and renew negotiations with the Canadian Government in this connection?

The Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs (Mr. Malcolm MacDonald): I have seen the resolution passed by the Legislative Assembly of Saskatchewan last February. As is pointed out in my hon. Friend's question, the Resolution was addressed to the Canadian Government, and it is clearly for the Canadian Government to decide what action, if any, they propose to take in regard to it. As regards the more general issue raised in the second part of the question, as I stated in the Debate on 25th January, the Government here take every occasion that presents itself of discussing this important subject with Dominion Ministers, and I hope that the forthcoming Imperial Conference will provide a further opportunity of doing so.

Mr. De Chair: Could the hon. and gallant Gentleman ask the Canadian Government in the meantime whether they have considered the proposal of the Saskatchewan Government?

Mr. MacDonald: I am quite prepared to make inquiries, but it is for the Canadian Government to consider the matter and to take any initiative which they wish.

Mr. Day: asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs what is the most recent information he has received with reference to the number of settlers in the state of Victoria from the United Kingdom who have been, and are still, in a state of distress on account of conditions not being fulfilled upon which they were induced to emigrate to Victoria and take up land there; and is he satisfied


that the agreements bearing on this matter, entered into between His Majesty's Government and the Commonwealth of Australia, have been carried out?

Mr. MacDonald: Of the 311 Settlers under the Victoria Land Settlement Schemes whose cases were dealt with by the Royal Commission set up by the Victoria Government in 1930, only about half a dozen, so far as any recent information on record in my Department shows, are still finding difficulty in reestablishing themselves, either in this country or in Australia. I have reason to believe that the settlement adopted by the Government of Victoria, with the concurrence of the United Kingdom and Commonwealth Governments, subsequent to the Royal Commission's Report has been put fully in effect.

Mr. Day: Is anything being done to assist the half dozen who have found difficulty in trying to establish themselves?

Mr. MacDonald: It is as a result of our assistance that in many other cases the settlers have found satisfactory employment. We have done everything we could in the case of those half dozen when they have asked us to do so, and we are ready to continue giving any help we possibly can.

SPAIN.

Mr. Bellenger: asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether the Dominions have been consulted on the question of volunteers for the fighting in Spain; what is the attitude of the Irish Government; and whether His Majesty's Government have endeavoured to obtain their concurrence in the measures of prohibition that have been taken?

Mr. M. MacDonald: The Dominion Governments were informed both of the course which His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom proposed to follow and of the action taken. As regards the latter part of the question I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, East (Mr. Mander) on 26th January.

Mr. Bellenger: Does that reply deal with the attitude of the Irish Government?

Mr. MacDonald: I have said in that reply that the attitude of the Irish Free State Government will no doubt be stated at the appropriate time in the Non-Intervention Committee, on which the Irish Free State is represented. It is not for me to make any statement about the attitude of the Irish Free State Government.

Mr. Bellenger: Does not the right hon. Gentleman see that unless he can induce the Commonwealth Governments to put themselves in line with the British point of view, non-intervention will not be non-intervention?

Mr. Mander: Can the right hon. Gentleman say, for the information of the House, whether the position is that residents in the Dominions are now free to go to Spain and fight on either side?

Mr. MacDonald: It is for the Dominion Governments to make any statement which they wish to make on this matter.

Mr. Mander: But does the right hon. Gentleman not know?

Oral Answers to Questions — MERCANTILE MARINE.

IMPERIAL SHIPPING COMMITTEE'S REPORT.

Mr. Storey: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will make a statement upon the discussions between His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom and His Majesty's Governments in Canada, the Commonwealth of Australia and New Zealand about the assistance of British shipping services in the Pacific?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Dr. Burgin): I am not in a position to add anything to the answer which I gave to the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Lewis) on 26th January.

Mr. Storey: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the House may expect to have some information on the nature of the proposals made?

Dr. Burgin: Negotiations are taking place with a number of Dominion Governments. I would not like to hazard a suggestion as to the length of time, but I have no reason to think that any longer time will be spent than is necessary.

STEAMSHIP "THEEMS" (COLLISION).

Mr. Benjamin Smith: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will give particulars of the number of officers and crew employed on the steamship "Theems" at the time of her collision with the French steam trawler "Notre Dame de Lourdes," on 10th January; the nature of the certificates held by the officers; whether, at the time of the casualty, there was any man on the bridge besides the boatswain; what certificate is held by the boatswain; and whether it is his intention to order a formal investigation in this case?

Dr. Burgin: Inquiries into the circumstances in which this collision occurred have not yet been completed and it is not possible, therefore, at present to supply the whole of the information asked for, or to say whether a formal investigation will be held. I am informed, however, that the steamship "Theems" carried a crew of ten, and that the only certificated officer on board was the master, who is the holder of a home trade certificate as mate.

Mr. Smith: In the light of that reply, will the hon. Gentleman consider recommending the Government to change the point of view enunciated on their behalf at Geneva and to see that only certificated officers are in charge of ships whether coastwise or otherwise?

Dr. Burgin: I think that is a very different question and if the hon. Member desires an answer to it, perhaps he will put it on the Paper.

DANISH VESSEL'S CREW.

Mr. Grenfell: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that the steamship "Maria Toft" left Cardiff last week and was anchored in Barry Roads to pick up a crew sent from Germany; and whether this has been done in accordance with the Aliens Order and with the authority of the Ministry of Labour in regard to the employment of seamen?

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd): I have made inquiries and find that this Danish vessel arrived at Cardiff on 14th January bound for Vigo, and as some of the crew declined to proceed the owners made arrangements for their repatriation

and their replacement by others, including six German seamen. As these seamen were not for employment in the United Kingdom, Ministry of Labour permits under the Aliens Order for their engagement were not required.

Mr. Grenfell: Is it the case that this vessel anchored within the three-mile limit and took on the German crew in British territorial waters?

Mr. Lloyd: There is nothing unusual in a foreign ship taking on foreign seamen.

Mr. Grenfell: But is there nothing unusual in taking a ship out of port for the specific purpose of embarking another crew when the legitimate crew have signed their contracts?

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

INDIA (COTTON PIECE GOODS, IMPORTS).

Mr. Rostron Duckworth: asked the President of the Board of Trade in view of the recent Japanese official reports that the volume of Japanese cotton-piece goods imported into India was larger in the year 1936 than that supplied by Lancashire, whether he can indicate the latest comparative statistics of imports of these goods from the two sources of supply; and whether the relative ratio disclosed is consistent with the proportionate purchase of Indian Products by Britain and Japan?

Dr. Burgin: The latest figures of Indian trade available relate to the II months ended November, 1936. During that period imports of cotton piece-goods consigned from the United Kingdom amounted to 337,000,000 yards, valued at £5.4 million and from Japan to 431,000,000 yards, valued at £4.2 million. In the same period the value of exports of Indian merchandise to the United Kingdom was £38.4 million and to Japan £8.0 million. Corresponding figures of imports of all merchandise were £33.6 million from the United Kingdom and £14.8 million from Japan. My hon. Friend will recollect that maximum imports of Japanese cotton goods into India are regulated according to the terms of the Indo-Japanese Treaty of 1933 whereby these imports are linked on a quota basis with exports of Indian raw cotton to Japan.

COTTON INDUSTRY.

Mr. Silverman: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether it is the Government's intention to apply to weaving sections of the cotton trade the principles of the Cotton Spinning Industry Act, 1936; and, if so, whether he can give any indication of the probable date on which legislation will be introduced?

Dr. Burgin: My right hon. Friend has received no proposals from the weaving sections of the cotton trade for legislation on the lines of the Cotton Spinning Industry Act, 1936.

Mr. Silverman: Has any attempt been made by the hon. Gentleman's Department to ascertain whether the weaving section of the trade desire the principles of the Cotton Spinning Industry Act to be applied to that section of the trade?

Dr. Burgin: I believe the weaving sec-ton of the trade has a committee at work, but no report of the results of the work of that committee has yet been made to my Department.

Mr. Silverman: Would the hon. Gentleman address himself to the Supplementary Question which I asked—whether his Department has made any approach to the weaving section of the trade in order to ascertain whether they desire the remedy applied to the spinning section of the trade, to be applied also to the weaving section?

Mr. Silverman: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the purchase of spindles under the Cotton Spinning Industry Act has yet commenced; if so, how many have so far been purchased; and whether he is now in a position to say how many spindles are likely to be dealt with as surplus under the Act?

Dr. Burgin: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part, I would ask the hon. Member to await the report which the Spindles Board are required to make under Section 20 of the Cotton Spinning Industry Act and which the Board of Trade are required to lay before the House. As regards the third part, I fear that it is impossible for me to forecast the number of spindles that the Spindles Board are likely to purchase.

Mr. Silverman: When may the House reasonably expect the publication of the information asked for in the second part of the question?

Dr. Burgin: Some time after 14th September next.

WOOD PULP.

Lieut.-Colonel Heneage: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the increase by Scandinavian and other Baltic countries of the price of pulp by about 40 per cent.; whether he has information as to the operation of a ring of foreign pulp manufacturers; and whether he will take these facts into consideration when trade agreements with these countries come to an end, especially in view of the fact that foreign newsprint is not subject to a tariff on importation into this country?

Dr. Burgin: I am aware that considerable increases have recently occurred in world prices both of wood pulp and of the timber from which it is made. I am also aware of the Scandinavian and European Conventions for the regulation of pulp production. The answer to the last part is in the affirmative.

PIG-IRON (IMPORTS).

Mr. Morgan: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has any information as to the negotiations which are now on foot for the importation of a considerable quantity of pig-iron from Russia; and whether, in view of the increased importation of such material from foreign sources during recent months and the large supplies available, both in this country and the Empire, any steps are being taken to discourage unnecessary importation of foreign pig-iron?

Dr. Burgin: Pig-iron was imported in substantial quantities in 1936 from Russia and other foreign countries and from British India, and I understand that it is likely that the requirements of the British market will require further importations in the current year. My hon. Friend is no doubt aware that foreign pig-iron is subject on importation to a duty of 33⅓ per cent. ad valorem, while Empire pig-iron can be imported free of duty.

Mr. Thorne: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is a great shortage of


what is known as scrap-iron, which puts the pig-iron manufacturers in this country at a great disadvantage?

Dr. Burgin: What is perhaps more relevant to the question under consideration is that there is a very real shortage of pig-iron.

CINEMATOGRAPH INDUSTRY.

Mr. Day: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the number of cinematograph films that have been made during the previous 12 months, or are being made at the present time for commercial purposes, in which Government property was or is being used; and will he give particulars of what payment has been made to the Government for the use thereof?

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lieut.-Colonel Colville): I am about to send the hon. Member the information for which he asked in his question on a similar matter on 10th December last; I will add to it such information as can properly be given in reply to his present question.

Mr. Day: Is the last part of the question also dealt with in that answer?

Lieut.-Colonel Colville: I have tried to deal with the whole question if possible.

Mr. Hall-Caine: asked the President of the Board of Trade when it is intended to introduce legislation to implement the findings of the Moyne Committee on the cinematograph industry in this country; and whether he can give an assurance that such legislation will be of a nature that will lead to the better protection of the British film industry?

Dr. Burgin: I have nothing to add to the answer which I gave to my hon. Friend on 8th December last.

Mr. Hall-Caine: Does my hon. Friend realise that this industry is in a very serious position, and will he give it notice that unless they come to some decision shortly the Government will take action on their own account?

Dr. Burgin: I think that legislation in connection with this industry must as far as possible be canvassed with the industry first. I am awaiting replies from within the industry, and I propose to give the

industry a full opportunity of considering the way in which it ought to be governed.

Mr. Hall-Caine: Will my hon. Friend ask them to hurry up? Otherwise there will be no industry left.

Mr. Day: Does the hon. Gentleman intend to give effect to the report brought in by this Committee, or is he having it pigeon-holed as many other reports have been in the past?

Mr. Hall-Caine: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the fact that British films do not get a reasonable chance in the United States; and whether, in view of the large revenue received by the United States film producers in respect of exhibiting in this country, he can take steps to ensure a greater measure of reciprocity?

Dr. Burgin: My hon. Friend's suggestion will be borne in mind.

CALCIUM CARBIDE.

Sir Arnold Gridley: asked the President of the Board of Trade the quantity of calcium carbide consumed in Great Britain during the last 12 months for which figures are available; the percentages thereof of home and foreign production, respectively; and the number of factories in Great Britain over which the home production was spread?

Dr. Burgin: The retained imports of calcium carbide in the year 1936 amounted to 1,107,000 cwts. So far as is known, all calcium carbide consumed in this country in recent years has been obtained from imported sources.

IRON AND STEEL FEDERATION.

Mr. R. Acland: asked the President of the Board of Trade what is to be done with the profits made by the British Iron and Steel Federation out of their dealings with imported iron and steel, other than iron and steel imported under the cartel agreement?

Dr. Burgin: I am informed that the intention of the Federation is to use any profits there may be for some corporate purpose such as, for instance, the encouragement of the export trade; at the moment, however, they fear that substantial losses may result from some of the later transactions.

GERMANY (FATS AND OILS).

Mr. A. Henderson: asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether to bring up to date the figures already published for 1934, he will state for the years 1935 and 1936 the amounts of edible fats and oils and of industrial fats and oils, respectively, consumed in Germany, produced in Germany, and imported into Germany?

Captain Euan Wallace (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): The Commercial Counsellor to His Majesty's Em-

German Production, Net Imports and Consumption of Oils and Fats in each of the Years 1934, 1935 and 1936.


(Taken from article written by Heir Backe, Under-Secretary of State, German Ministry for Food and Agriculture, in the first copy of "Der Vierjahresplan.")


—
1934.
1935
1936.


In 1,000 tons (metric).


Production:





Butter
424
430
445


Lard
172
145
160


Bacon
220
190
210


Edible tallow
25
25
25


Premier jus and oleo-margarine
10
9
11


Vegetable oils
16
27
40


Technical fats (tallow bone fat, fish oils)
48
50
52


Total
915
876
943


Net Imports:





Butter
61
71
78


Lard
42
30
35


Bacon
15
10
12


Edible tallow, Premier jus and oleo-margarine
1
—
—


Technical fats
31
19
28


Oil content equivalent from oil seeds
676
408
600


Vegetable oils, oily acids and hard fats
34
79
70


Whale oil
142
248
160


Total
1,002
865
983


Consumption:





Butter
485
501
523


Lard
194
175
195


Bacon
215
200
222


Edible tallow, Premier jus and oleo-margarine
35
34
36


Margarine
400
400
428


Other substitute fats
15
15
15


Pnre vegetable edible fats
60
57·1
55·4


Pure edible oils
140
136·2
126


Industrial fats
434
378
368


Total
1,978
1,896·3
1,968·4

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

BOARD OF TRADE (CLEARING OFFICES).

Mr. Day: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will give particulars of the number of staff, if any, still employed in the clearing house for

bassy in Berlin informs me that it is not possible for him to obtain figures for the years 1935 and 1936 comparable with those published on page 241 of his last report on Economic Conditions in Germany, to which I assume the hon. Member refers. He has, however, sent me a more recent set of figures for the years 1934, 1935 and 1936. They are taken from a semi-official German publication, and I will circulate them in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following are the figures:

enemy debts; what sum, if any, is paid yearly to the Office of Works by that Department for accommodation?

Dr. Burgin: No staff is now employed in the Clearing Office on work relating to enemy debts. Nine persons are, however,


fully employed in Board of Trade headquarters offices on work relating to ex-enemy property, and a further six persons are partly so employed. Their work consists chiefly in completing the release to former owners of unliquidated property, and in the conduct of legal proceedings and claims brought against the administrator. The annual rental payable to the Office of Works for the accommodation of this staff and the voluminous records of the Clearing Office is at present £1,923.

Mr. Day: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether surplus office accommodation is handed over to the Office of Works?

Dr. Burgin: Not without notice.

JOINT INDUSTRIAL COUNCILS.

Mr. Mander: asked the Prime Minister whether he will consider the advisability of setting up in all Government workshops advisory appeal tribunals composed of representatives of the management and employés before which all cases of dismissal may be brought in accordance with modern industrial practice?

The Prime Minister (Mr. Baldwin): For many years there have existed in the principal Departments employing industrial staff joint industrial councils or alternative machinery the general object of which is to secure, by means of regular joint discussion between representatives of the Government and of the employés, the fullest measure of co-operation in the administration and work, in the national interests and with a view to the increased well-being of all concerned therein. I am satisfied that in general these councils and the local machinery associated with them afford adequate arrangements for the proper discussion of any difficulties such as those referred to in the question.

Mr. Mander: Would it not be practicable for those who have been dismissed to make an appeal, to be heard privately by some organ of these joint industrial councils, as is done in industry at the present time with satisfactory results in many cases?

The Prime Minister: I have heard no sort of complaint with regard to this machinery.

NAVAL AIRCRAFT.

Mr. Mander: asked the Prime Minister whether any decision has been arrived at with reference to the controversy between the Admiralty and the Air Ministry concerning the control of naval aircraft; and whether he will give an assurance that no change will be brought into operation before the House has an opportunity of discussing it?

The Prime Minister: I have nothing to add to the answer which I gave on 28th January in reply to a question by the hon. and gallant Member for Nuneaton (Lieut.-Commander Fletcher).

Mr. Mander: Can the Prime Minister say how long it is likely to be before a decision is arrived at?

The Prime Minister: I am afraid, as I have just said, that I have nothing to add.

ROYAL AIR FORCE.

Mr. Cary: asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the unforeseen delays which have occurred in the carrying out of the expansion programme for the Royal Air Force, he will consider the desirability of appointing a committee to inquire into means whereby the programme may be accelerated?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. The whole defence programme has since its inception been under the continuous review of the special Cabinet Committee to which I referred in the statement which I made on 27th February last year in reply to a question by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition. I am sending my hon. Friend a copy of that reply.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE.

HOLIDAY RESORTS (EXPENDITURE).

Sir N. Grattan-Doyle: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, as part of any future general scheme for expenditure on public works during a trade depression, he will include plans for rendering our inland and seaside holiday and health resorts and spas attractive by improving the hotels, the indoor entertainments, and outdoor sports, by all of which Continental resorts attract visitors from the United Kingdom?

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Chamberlain): The matters referred to in the question, in so far as they are appropriate subjects of public expenditure, are primarily for the consideration of the local authorities concerned. I do not consider that there is any case for State grants for these purposes.

MALE SERVANTS DUTY.

Sir William Davison: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether any negotiations have taken place between the Treasury and local authorities with regard to the desirability of abolishing the duty on the employment of male servants?

Mr. Chamberlain: No, Sir, but the subject is being considered by the Minister of Health and representatives of local authorities in connection with the forthcoming revision of the block grant.

Sir W. Davison: Will that enable the matter to be dealt with before the coming Budget; and is it not very desirable that it should be so dealt with, in view of the strong feeling both in the House and the country as to the prejudicial effect of this duty upon the provision of work for unemployed men?

Mr. Chamberlain: I am afraid I cannot add anything to what I have already said.

INCOME TAX.

Mr. Lambert: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will take steps to remedy the present system under which the foreign firms importing meat into this country operate through associated British companies, and the foreign controlling company fix the prices at which the meat is purchased and sold by the British company, so that a minimum of British Income Tax is payable?

Mr. Chamberlain: I would draw the attention of my right hon. Friend to the fact that the Income Tax Act, 1918, in Rule 7 of the General Rules applicable to all Schedules, already contains a provision enabling an appropriate charge of Income Tax to be made upon a foreign concern which, owing to its close connection with a British concern, is able so to arrange the course of business between them that the business done by the British concern produces less than the ordinary profits which might be expected to arise. My right hon. Friend may rest assured

that steps are taken in the normal application of the Act to secure the assessment of any tax that is due.

Mr. Lambert: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the House an assurance that the foreign firms will be taxed equally with the British firms?

Mr. Chamberlain: That is a rather larger assurance that I should be prepared to give.

Mr. Peat: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) whether he will state the amount of the income for the year ended 31st March, 1936, arising in the United Kingdom subject to double taxation generally and, in particular, by reason of taxes imposed by the United States of America;
(2) whether he will state the amount of income arising in the United States of America subject to United Kingdom Income Tax for the year ended 31st March, 1936;
(3) whether there is any obstacle to an arrangement with the United States of America granting reciprocal relief from double taxation?

Mr. Chamberlain: I regret that I am unable to furnish any estimate of the income arising in the United Kingdom or in any foreign country which may be subject to double taxation. As regards the question of relief from double taxation as between the United Kingdom and the United States of America, I would remind my hon. Friend that our law provides for arrangements on a reciprocal basis with foreign countries for relieving from double Income Tax shipping and air transport profits and profits derived from business carried on through agencies, and the arrangements already in force include one with the United States for the mutual exemption of shipping profits. No proposals for any extension of the sphere of relief provided by the existing law have been made to us by the United States Government, and as at present advised I do not think the time opportune for raising the question from this side.

Mr. Peat: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in the United States Revenue Act, 1936, Section 131, relief is given to American nationals on such of their income as is already subject to tax in this country? Is he also aware that owing to the


increase of taxation throughout the world the question of double taxation is becoming important and a real hindrance to the revival of international trade?

Mr. Chamberlain: The question is whether we should derive advantage or disadvantage by such an arrangement as my hon. Friend proposes. As at present advised, I do not think that we should derive advantage.

PUBLIC WORKS LOANS.

Mr. Hall-Caine: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer in how many cases during 1936 the Public Works Loan Board accepted repayment of loans made by them at interest rates exceeding 5 per cent. without any premium or with a premium reduced below their normal scale; and in what circumstances the Board is still prepared to make a similar concession?

Mr. Chamberlain: During the year 1936 the Public Works Loan Board accepted repayment in respect of loans made at interest rates exceeding 5 per cent. per annum without any premium or with a premium reduced below the normal scale in 95 cases. With regard to the second part of the question, the board are authorised to accept repayment without premium of the unexpended balance of loans made for schemes which have proved less costly than anticipated, and of loans made under the Agricultural Credits Act, 1923. The board are also authorised to waive the normal premium or to accept a reduced premium in certain cases in which the loan has been made for housing purposes and the borrowing authority has been compelled either by statute or by the terms of its mortgage to accept premature repayment of its advances to individual borrowers or to make immediate repayment to the Public Works Loan Board of some part of its advances.

LAND TAX (TITHE REDEMPTION).

Brigadier-General Clifton Brown: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware of the increase in the future assessment of the land to Land Tax, owing to the absence of any provision in the Tithe Act, 1936, for a deduction in respect of the tithe redemption annuity substituted for tithe rentcharge

which was itself subject to Land Tax; and what steps he proposes to take to prevent the imposition of this additional burden on agriculture?

Mr. Chamberlain: The Tithe Act, 1936, effected a comprehensive settlement on the basis of a self-balancing scheme as between the general body of tithe-owners on the one hand and the general body of tithe-payers on the other. In the general finance of the scheme certain deductions were made for the purpose of determining the amount of redemption stock issuable to tithe-owners, among the deductions being the estimated total amount of Land Tax previously payable by tithe-owners in respect of tithe rentcharge. The effect of these deductions was to enable a lower redemption annuity to be fixed for tithe-payers. In these circumstances I do not think it inequitable that tithe-payers, who are paying a smaller annuity because of the deduction made against tithe-owners for Land Tax, should themselves in future bear that Land Tax.

Brigadier-General Brown: In view of the undertakings given by the Government during the passing of the Tithe Act that the Government were not going to make any money out of owner or payer, does my right hon. Friend think that the Government are honouring that obligation?

Mr. Chamberlain: Yes, we are not making any money out of either of them.

Captain Heilgers: Is it not a fact that this increased Land Tax assessment means in some cases from one-third to one-half the relief given to the tithe-payer in the 1936 Act?

Mr. Chamberlain: That may be so or it may not; I am not prepared to say. In any case, against that must be set the lower annuity that is payable in consequence.

LIQUOR TRAFFIC (STATE CONTROL).

Mr. Lovat-Fraser: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why the management of the State traffic in liquor in Carlisle, Gretna, and Cromarty pay no Income Tax; and how much the profits for 1935 would have been reduced if Income Tax had been paid?

Mr. Chamberlain: Income Tax is not chargeable on profits which accrue to the State. As regards the schemes to which my hon. Friend refers, the Income Tax for 1935–36, if chargeable, would, it is estimated, have been approximately £14,800.

Mr. Mathers: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the attempts from time to time to bring discredit upon the State management schemes are resented by those who know the position, and that the position now is not only a vast improvement on the pre-control period, but is probably the best in the country?

Mr. Chamberlain: I did not understand my hon. Friend's question in that sense.

Mr. Magnay: How can there be any profits from a Socialist experiment?

Mr. Lovat-Fraser: asked the Home Secretary whether, in view of the report of the Select Committee on Estimates, he approves of the State traffic in liquor in Gretna and Cromarty being managed from Glasgow, which is about 90 miles from Gretna and 300 miles from Cromarty; and, if not, whether he proposes to take any action?

Mr. Elliot: I would refer my hon. Friend to the replies given to his questions on Thursday last. As was then stated by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, I am satisfied that the existing management, which comprises local superintendents in the two Scottish districts under the control of a general manager in Glasgow is efficient and economical. In the circumstances the last part of the question does not arise.

Mr. Lovat-Fraser: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Carlisle experiment, to which the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Mathers) referred a few moments ago, is regarded by people who know a great deal more about it than he does as little short of a scandal?

ALCOHOLIC DRINKS (RAILWAY TRAINS).

Mr. Ammon: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether the granting of an Excise licence for the sale of alcoholic refreshment on railway trains is made subject to any restrictions as to hours of sale and the soliciting of orders

and the serving of such refreshments in ordinary passenger compartments?

Lieut.-Colonel Colville: The answer is in the negative.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

AFFORESTATION (SPECIAL AREAS).

Mr. Sexton: asked the hon. and gallant Member for Rye, as representing the Forestry Commissioners, the total acreage of land for planting now secured towards the scheme of extra planting undertaken to relieve unemployment in the Special Areas; the location and acreage so secured for County Durham, South Wales, and Scotland, respectively; and the number of unemployed men who have been set to work in the three Special Areas aforementioned, respectively?

Colonel Sir George Courthope (Forestry Commissioner): The acreage of land for planting actually secured towards the scheme of extra planting in the Special Areas is 6,926 being part of a much larger area approved for acquisition. 4,904 acres are in the north of England, none in County Durham itself and 2,022 acres in South Wales. The scheme is not applicable to Scotland. It will not be possible to start afforestation operations on these new acquisitions during the current planting season, but in South Wales 35 persons, and in the north of England 17 persons, are employed on nursery work for the Special Areas scheme.

Mr. Shinwell: Could the hon. and gallant Gentleman say why so little afforestation has been undertaken in the county of Durham?

Sir G. Courthope: A great deal has been done in the neighbouring counties which will give relief to the county of Durham.

Mr. Shinwell: Why has so little been undertaken in the county of Durham? Why has it been neglected?

Sir G. Courthope: It has not been neglected.

Colonel Clifton Brown: Is not there any land in the neighbourhood of Durham that could be planted?

Mr. Sexton: asked the hon. and gallant Member for Rye, as representing the Forestry Commissioners, how much money has been paid to the Forestry


Commissioners in respect to the additional planting undertaken to relieve unemployment in the Special Areas; and, if possible, what amount was paid for acreage in or near county Durham, South Wales, and Scotland Special Areas, respectively?

Sir G. Courthope: The grant-in-aid to the Forestry Commission was increased during the financial year 1936–37 by £200,000 in respect of afforestation schemes in or near the Special Areas in England and Wales, but without allocation to the different areas. The actual sums paid for the acquisition of land are South Wales £9,450, North of England £10,365. In addition acquisitions amounting to approximately £100,000 have been approved by the Commissioners.

Mr. Sexton: May I ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman to reply to the question how much money has been spent on acreage in the county of Durham?

Sir G. Courthope: None.

Mr. Shinwell: If that is correct, how can the hon. and gallant Gentleman say that the county of Durham has not been neglected? [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer!"] May I put a further supplementary question if the hon. and gallant Member is unable to answer, namely, whether the Forestry Commissioners have in contemplation any afforestation schemes for the county of Durham?

Sir G. Courthope: The Forestry Commissioners are under an obligation to arrange special afforestation schemes for the Special Areas, of which the county of Durham forms a part. There is no obligation to select individual counties.

Mr. Sexton: Owing to the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I will raise the question on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

DURHAM COUNTY.

Mr. W. Joseph Stewart: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that, in the county boroughs of Sunderland and South Shields and the Boldon areas of Durham County, the percentages of the insured unemployed are as follow: Sunderland 31, South Shields 33.2, and the Boldon areas 29.4; and what steps

are being taken to establish new industries in those areas so as to find work for the numbers of unemployed?

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ernest Brown): I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave him on 24th November, 1936. I must now ask him to await the proposals which will be embodied in the Bill which it is hoped to introduce in the near future.

Mr. Stewart: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House whether the Governmen have any schemes to find work for the unemployed in that particular area?

Mr. Brown: Not at the moment.

AVIATION (JUNCTION AIRPORT SYSTEM).

Mr. Smedley Crooke: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether his attention has been drawn to the protest made by the Birmingham Airport Committee at the exclusion of that city from the scheme proposed by the May-bury Committee; and, in view of the commitments of the Birmingham City Council in making the new Elmdon airport second to none in the country, will he reconsider Birmingham's claims to be included in any scheme of national linking up of civil aviation?

The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Sir Philip Sassoon): I have noted the representations of the Birmingham Airport Committee on this subject, but I presume that my hon. Friend recognises that the recommendations of the committee deal with the needs of civil aviation as a whole throughout the country. The junction airport system, which forms only part of their comprehensive proposals, is in the nature of a particular experiment to test the results of airline operation in the most favourable possible circumstances, between terminal points lying far apart from one another. The fact that Birmingham is not included in this scheme for the linking of extremities does not mean that that city's air interests are likely to be disregarded, as I think is clear from a study of the committee's report as a whole.

Mr. Cartland: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the airport at Birmingham was entirely unconsidered by the committee, that there is no reference


to it in the report at all, and will he, before this scheme is put into operation, consider the whole position?

Sir P. Sassoon: This junction airport scheme is only in the nature of an experiment.

PHYSICAL TRAINING.

Mr. Sandys: asked the President of the Board of Education whether he is in a position to announce the Government's plans for improving the national standard of physical fitness?

The President of the Board of Education (Mr. Oliver Stanley): I hope that a White Paper explaining the Government's proposals will be issued on Thursday next.

The statistics of employment compiled by the Ministry of Labour relate only to workpeople insured under the Unemployment Insurance Acts, and figures for individual industries can be given only for 1923 and subsequent years. The following table gives the available information for the cotton industry in Great Britain for 1923, 1925 and 1935:—


Date.
Age-group.
Estimated numbers insured.
Numbers of insured unemployed.
Difference.


June, 1923
…
…
18 years and over
…
511,680
114,161
397,519





16 and 17
…
55,760
8,021
47,739


June, 1925
…
…
18 years and over
…
519,720
46,844
472,876





16 and 17
…
53,430
1,958
51,472


June, 1935
…
…
18 to 64
…
421,390
96,922
324,468





16 and 17
…
20,940
1,363
19,577





14 and 15
…
27,100
772
26,328

MOTOR CARS (SAFETY GLASS).

Sir N. Grattan-Doyle: asked the Home Secretary the nature of the action being taken by the Metropolitan police to give effect to the regulation requiring motor cars to be fitted with safety glass; and whether cars are being stopped on the road for the purpose of ascertaining whether the regulation has been observed?

Mr. Lloyd: There is no provision in the regulations requiring safety glass fitted to windscreens of motor cars to be marked as such, and it is not possible therefore for the police by inspection to determine whether or not the regulation is being complied with. Police action is accordingly confined to cases where a breach of the regulation comes to their notice, usually when an accident has occurred and the windscreen has been broken. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative.

Mr. Denman: Is the 48 hours' week in factories for young people an integral part of the Government's physical development scheme?

COTTON INDUSTRY (EMPLOYMENT).

Mr. Silverman: asked the Minister of Labour how many adults and how many juveniles were employed in the cotton trade in 1913, 1921, 1925 and 1935, respectively?

Mr. E. Brown: As the reply includes a table of figures, I will, if I may, circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the statement:

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. Attlee: May I ask the Prime Minister how far he intends to go when the House has given a Second Reading to the Regency Bill?

The Prime Minister: After the Second Reading of the Regency Bill, we propose to proceed with the remaining Orders, that is to say, with the Money Resolution and up to and including No. 8. Most of the Orders are of a minor character, and we propose to go steadily on, getting as many of them as possible, without asking the House to sit late.

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—The Prime Minister.]

The House divided: Ayes, 253; Noes, 111.

Division No. 60.]
AYES.
[3.45 p.m.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir F. Dyke
Ellis, Sir G.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Elmley, Viscount
Palmer, G. E. H.


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Emmott, C. E. G. C.
Patrick, C. M.


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Peake, O.


Albery, Sir trying
Everard, W. L.
Peat, C. U.


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'kn'hd)
Fildes, Sir H.
Percy, Rt. Hon. Lord E.


Anderson, Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.)
Findlay, Sir E.
Peters, Dr. S. J.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Fleming, E. L.
Petherick, M.


Assheton, R.
Fox, Sir G. W. G.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.)
Furness, S. N.
Pilkington, R.


Atholl, Duchess of
Ganzoni, Sir J.
Pownall, Lt.-Col. Sir Assheton


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir J.
Procter, Major H. A.


Barclay-Harvey, Sir C. M.
Gluckstein, L. H.
Radford, E. A.


Barrie, Sir C. C.
Glyn, Major Sir R. G. C.
Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.


Baxter, A. Beverley
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Ramsbotham, H.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.
Ramsden, Sir E.


Beauchamp, Sir B. C.
Gridley, Sir A. B.
Rathbone, Eleanor (English Univ's.)


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Grimston, R. V.
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)


Bennett, Capt. Sir E. N.
Guy, J. C. M.
Rayner, Major R. H.


Blair, Sir R.
Hacking, Rt. Hon. D. H.
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)


Blindell, Sir J.
Hanbury, Sir C.
Reid, Sir D. D. (Down)


Bower, Comdr. R. T.
Hannah, I. C.
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)


Bowyer, Capt. Sir G. E. W.
Hannon, Sir P. J. H.
Remer, J. R.


Brass, Sir W.
Harbord, A.



Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Ropner, Colonel L.


Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham)
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.
Ross, Major Sir R. D. (Londonderry)


Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Herbert, A. P. (Oxford U.)
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.


Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.)
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)


Bull, B. B.
Herbert, Capt. Sir S. (Abbey)
Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)


Bullock, Capt. M.
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. J. W. (Ripon)
Salmon, Sir I.


Burgin, Dr. E. L.
Holmes, J. S.
Salt, E. W.


Butler, R. A.
Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.
Samuel, M. R. A. (Putney)


Caine, G. R. Hall-
Hore-Belisha, Rt. Hon. L.
Sanderson, Sir F. B.


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Horsbrugh, Florence
Sandys, E. D.


Cartland, J. R. H.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir P.


Carver, Major W. H.
Hudson, R. S. (Southport)
Savory, Sir Servington


Gary, R. A.
Hulbert, N. J.
Scott, Lord William


Castlereagh, Viscount
Hunter, T.
Selley, H. R.


Cayzer, Sir C. W. (City of Chester)
Hurd, Sir P. A.
Shakespeare, G. H.


Cayzer, Sir H. R. (Portsmouth, S.)
Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)
Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Jones, L. (Swansea W.)
Shepperson, Sir E. W.


Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Keeling, E. H.
Simmonds, O. E.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)
Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.


Channon, H.
Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)
Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.


Chapman, A. (Ruthergten)
Keyes, Admiral of the Fleet Sir R.
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)


Chapman, Sir S. (Edinburgh, S.)
Kimball, L.
Smith, L. W. (Hallam)


Clarke, F. E.
Lambert, Rt. Hon. G.
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)


Clarke, Lt.-Col. R. S. (E. Grinstead)
Leckie, J. A.
Somervell. Sir D. B. (Crewe)


Clarry, Sir Reginald
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Colfox, Major W. P.
Lees-Jones, J.
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Colville, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. D. J.
Leigh, Sir J.
Spears, Brigadier-General E. L.


Cook, Sir T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.)
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Spender-Clay, Lt.-Cl. Rt. Hn. H. H.


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'd)


Cooper, Rt. Hn. A. Duff (W'st'r S. G'gs)
Llewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J.
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)
Lloyd, G. W.
Storey, S.


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Locker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S.
Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.


Courthope, Col. Sir G. L.
Loftus, P. C.
Strauss, E. A. (Southwark. N.)


Critohley, A.
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Crooke, J. S.
MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.
M'Connell, Sir J.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Cross, R. H.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Scot. U.)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.


Crowder, J. F. E.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)
Sutcliffe, H.


Culverwell, C. T.
Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)
McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)


Davison, Sir W. H.
McKie, J. H.
Touche, G. C.


De Chair, S. S.
Macnamara, Capt. J. R. J.
Train, Sir J.


De la Bère, R.
Magnay, T.
Tree, A. R. L. F.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Makins, Brig.-Gen. E.
Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.


Danville, Alfred
Manningham-Buller, Sir M.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Turton, R. H.


Dixon, Capt. Rt. Hon. H.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Walker-Smith, Sir J.


Doland, G. F.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan


Dorman-Smith, Major R. H.
Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsond)


Dower, Capt. A. V. G.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Warrender, Sir V.


Drewe, C.
Morris-Jones, Sir Henry
Wayland, Sir W. A


Duckworth, G. A. V. (Salop)
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
Wells, S. R.


Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.


Dugdale, Major T. L.
Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Dunglass, Lord
Munro, P.
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Neven-Spence, Major B. H H.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. G. A.
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)







Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.
Wright, Squadron-Leader J. A. C.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Wise, A. R.
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)
Sir George Penny and Lieut.-


Womersley, Sir W. J.

Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward.




NOES.


Acland, R. T. D. (Barnstaple)
Harris, Sir P. A.
Potts, J.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Quibell, D. J. K.


Adamson, W. M.
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Richards, R. (Wrexham)


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Ridley, G.


Ammon, C. G.
Hicks, E. G.
Riley, B.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Ritson, J.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Hopkin, D.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Brom.)


Barnes, A. J.
Jagger, J.
Rowson, G.


Barr, J.
John, W.
Salter, Dr. A.


Batey, J.
Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.
Sanders, W. S.


Bellenger, F. J.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Seely, Sir H. M


Benson, G.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Sexton. T. M.


Bromfield, W.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Shinwell, E.


Brooke, W.
Lathan, G.
Short, A.


Buchanan, G.
Lawson, J. J.
Silverman, S. S.


Burke, W. A.
Leach, W.
Simpson, F. B.


Charleton, H. C.
Leonard, W.
Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)


Chater, D.
Leslie, J. R.
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Cluse, W. S.
Logan, D. G.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.
Lunn, W.
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)


Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Sorensen, R. W.


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
McEntee, V. La T.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Day, H.
McGhee, H. G.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)
Maclean, N.
Thorne, W.


Edwards, Sir C (Bedwellty)
MacMillan, M. (Western Isles)
Thurtle, E.


Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Mander, G. le M.
Tinker, J. J.


Evans, E. (Univ. of Wales)
Marshall, F.
Walkden, A. G.


Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
Mathers, G.
Walker, J.


Gallacher, W.
Maxton, J.
Watkins, F. C.


Gardner, B. W.
Messer, F.
Watson, W. McL.


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Montague, F.
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. J. C.


Gibbins, J.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Welsh, J. C.


Gibson, R. (Greenock)
Muff, G.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Naylor, T. E.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Grenfell, D. R.
Owen, Major G.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbre, W.)
Parker, J.



Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Parkinson, J. A.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Groves.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to consolidate the provisions of the Firearms Acts, 1920 to 1936, relating to firearms, imitation firearms and other weapons and to ammunition." [Firearms Bill [Lords.]

SELECTION (COMMITTEE ON UNOPPOSED BILLS) (PANEL).

Colonel Gretton reported from the Committee of Selection: That they had discharged the following Member from the Panel appointed to serve on the Committee on Unopposed Bills: Colonel Clifton Brown; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Crowder.

Report to lie upon the Table.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

SCOTTISH STANDING COMMITTEE.

Colonel Gretton reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had added the following Ten Members to the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills (in respect of the Maternity Services (Scot-

land) Bill): Mr. David Adams, Sir Irving Albery, Sir Ernest Graham-Little, Commander Locker-Lampson, Mr. Mabane, Mr. Ritson, Mr. Ross Taylor, Sir Servington Savery, Lord Colum Crichton-Stuart and Mr. Windsor.

Report to lie upon the Table.

Orders of the Day — REGENCY BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

3.56 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir John Simon): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
The Gracious Message from His Majesty, which was brought to this House a week ago and was read by you, Sir, from the Chair, invited us to consider:
the making of permanent provision for the purpose of facilitating the uninterrupted exercise of the Royal Authority, not only during the minority of the Sovereign on His Accession, hut also…during any incapacity of the Sovereign and during the absence of the Sovereign from the Realm.
The House immediately, upon the proposal of the Prime Minister, adopted an Address, assuring His Majesty that we would, without delay, proceed to consider these questions and to provide such Measures as appeared necessary or expedient for securing these purposes. The Bill of which I am now moving the Second Reading is the fulfilment of that assurance.
The House is aware, of course, that from time to time in our Parliamentary history, Regency Bills have been introduced and passed into law. Perhaps I might occupy one or two minutes in reminding hon. Members of some of the historic instances. There was one, for example, in 1536, in the later years of the reign of Henry VIII, passed in view of the possibility of a child born of the King's marriage with Jane Seymour coming to the Throne while still under age. There was another Regency Bill, passed some 200 years later, in 1751, during the reign of George II, in case his successor should come to the Throne under age, though in that case the contingency provided for did not occur, since George II lived on till 1760, and by that time George III had reached the age of 22. Then there was the famous instance, the most famous of the Regency Acts in our history, the Regency Act of 1811, which was passed and put into operation when George III became incapable of exercising his Royal functions through infirmity of mind. There

was the interesting case, almost forgotten now, of the Regency Act of 1830, passed when William IV came to the Throne, because at that time the Heir Presumptive, the Princess who was afterwards Queen Victoria, was only 11 years of age. The Act of 1830 provided that if the Princess Victoria was under the age of 18 at the death, without issue, of her uncle William IV, then her mother, the Duchess of Kent, should be Regent until the Princess reached the age of 18. It was a very near thing. Queen Victoria had just passed her 18th birthday when, on 20th June, 1837, she came to the Throne.
Then there is the final instance, which will be within the personal and Parliamentary recollection of a few of the older Members of this House, when, in 1910, upon the accession of George V at a time when the then Prince of Wales was 16 years old, the Regency Act of that year was passed providing for what would happen if the Prince succeeded to the Throne before reaching the age of 18.
These historical precedents will remind the House of the nature of the topic with which we have to deal, and they suggest two reflections, two comments which I think are relevant. The first reflection is this: I do not go back to very ancient times when the King of England was often on the Continent, because the King of England was also Sovereign of parts of France, and when in his absence there was an official called a Justiciar to discharge his duties. Subject to that, our ancient common law proceeded on the assumption that the Sovereign is always available here in this country, in good health of body and mind and therefore ready promptly to discharge day by day his Royal functions.
That is the assumption of our common law. I think the old lawyers sometimes called it "the doctrine of perfection," and it led, of course, to this conclusion, that however youthful the Monarch might be, he was treated in law as always old enough to undertake and discharge his duties; and the consequence of this formal theory was that when an occasion arose, or seemed likely to arise when either from the Sovereign's youth or from his ill-health he was incapable of carrying out his duties, then the common law has always had to be supplemented by legislation. That is the reason,


briefly stated, why the enactment of a Regency Bill in some form or other has from time to time been necessary.
The second reflection which I think my brief historical sketch may provoke is this, and I invite the attention of the House to it. Hon. Members will observe that the Regency Bills which have been previously passed, the Parliamentary provisions which from time to time have been made, have hitherto always been made in connection with or in contemplation of some special case. The Parliament of Henry VIII provided for the possibility of there being a youthful Edward VI; the Parliament of George II provided for the possible minority of George III; and so on.
The present Bill does not seek to deal with a special case in circumstances where it might be desirable, but it makes a general provision which would be available and applicable should occasion arise at any time hereafter. We are not proposing to legislate merely against the possibility, which may never arise, of a change in the occupant of the Throne while the present Heir Presumptive is still a child, but we are seeking to provide a general code which may be put into operation, if need be, in any cases in the future. I hope the House will agree that that is very much the better course. There have been cases in the past when the framing and passing of a Regency Bill has had to be undertaken in a hurry and when its passage has not been made any easier because the actual emergency had already arisen. To give an instance which I think will appeal to hon. Members, the Regency Bill of 1811, passed because of the insanity of George III, presented Parliament and the country with this difficulty: If that was the condition of that unfortunate Monarch at the time how was he going to give the Royal Assent to the Measure when it had passed through both Houses? As a matter of fact, by resolution of both Houses very special machinery and arrangements were adopted to secure that that Bill reached the Statute Book by a special process.
The present Bill, therefore, if it passes into law, will provide permanent machinery to be used in case of need in any of the three contingencies which are mentioned in the Royal Message. Let the House note what those three con-

tingencies are. They are all stated in the Message which was delivered to the House a week ago. The first case is the minority of the Sovereign on his accession. The second case is any incapacity of the Sovereign occurring during his reign. The third case is the absence of the Sovereign from the United Kingdom.
Before I make any references to the Clauses of the Bill there is one matter of more general importance which I should like to explain as clearly as I can. I must explain to the House what is the range of this Measure and show that in drafting it we have not overlooked the principles which are now recognised as governing the relation between laws passed by this United Kingdom Parliament and the Dominion legislatures. The Bill deals with the exercise of Royal functions and the Bill will be effective, when it becomes an Act, in the United Kingdom and in the Colonies. So far as the Dominions are concerned it will be for each Dominion Government to decide whether any legislation is necessary. So far as we are aware, the introduction of such legislation in any Dominion would not in any case be contemplated unless the necessity for a Regent should hereafter actually arise. The reason I make that assertion is this: When the Dominion Prime Ministers were here in London in the month of May, 1935, at the time of the Silver Jubilee of King George V, the opportunity was taken of discussing informally with them the introduction of legislation to make provision for a Regency, if it should be required. The House is aware that the matter was already under careful consideration because, as the Royal Message of last week reminded us, King George V had been concerned on this subject in the course of both his illnesses. We outlined to the Dominion representatives the general form which we thought our Bill should take, and we have kept the Dominion Governments informed of the proposals now before the House. The provisions as explained to the Dominion Prime Ministers were found to be generally acceptable, but it was, of course, made clear that it was entirely a matter for each Dominion to decide whether any legislation of its own may be necessary, now or hereafter, to make provision for the performance by a Regent or by Counsellors of State of Royal functions in relation to that Dominion.
The House will, therefore, see that on this occasion we are deliberately following different lines from those that we followed in the Abdication Act of last December. We are doing so deliberately. The Abdication Act, of course, was a law "touching the Succession to the Throne"; that is the phrase in the Statute of Westminster. Therefore it was proper that in the Preamble to the Abdication Act Dominion assent should be indicated, as contemplated in the Preamble to the Statute of Westminster. And it was so stated. But the present Bill is only a piece of machinery to be used if for one reason or another the existing Sovereign cannot for the moment discharge all his normal functions; it does not touch the Succession to the Throne, and after consultation with the Dominions it is agreed that it would be better and simpler to take the course of legislating here and now in the United Kingdom Parliament in the terms of the Bill before the House, and of recognising that the Dominions would prefer to take no positive action unless and until the occasion arises which seems to make it necessary.
There is a very good practical reason, apart from any theoretical or constitutional argument, why this course, in which the Dominion Governments and our own Government concur, should be followed, and it is this: A Dominion which has a Governor-General gets its ordinary day-by-day business done in the name of the Crown by the executive action of the Governor-General. The state of health or absence of the Sovereign does not hold up the machinery at all. Therefore the incapacity of the Sovereign for the time being to discharge his day-to-day functions has not the importance to the Dominions that it has to this country.
There is one other thing which I would like to mention. One has now had a long experience of the work that has to be done by a modern Sovereign. It is, of course, perfectly true that a constitutional Sovereign in this country is not engaged in exercising his independent judgment and giving his personal decisions upon a vast range of matters, as for all I know used to be the case centuries ago, but it is a very grave mistake to suppose on that account that the modern Sovereign of this country or the Commonwealth has not a great deal of necessary business to

do. The different Departments of government—and the Home Office is quite as strenuous as anybody—are constantly sending to the King, for the purposes of signature and formal approval, a very great range of documents, many in pursuance of Statutes passed by Parliament, and it is necessary that that approval should be formally given, often by the Sign Manual, and the inconvenience that results if that work cannot be carried on day by day, as it ordinarily is, is very great. I am sure hon. Gentlemen opposite who have had the same experience as I have will confirm me in that.

Mr. Maxton: That is a matter of routine.

Sir J. Simon: It is a very important and useful function, and I think it is only right to say that in my own experience, and I am sure in the experience of others, the diligence and punctuality with which this vast mass of business, which must, I daresay, be uninteresting and not very exciting, has been discharged by the Sovereigns whom I have had the honour to serve, are indeed very remarkable. On the other hand, if it so happened that the Sovereign could not discharge it, the inconvenience to the public service would be very great.
I have pointed out to the House that there are really three matters to be dealt with, and I would call attention to the Clauses which deal with them. Clause 1 of the Bill deals with the minority of the Sovereign on his Accession, and must be read with Clause 3, which provides that the Regent is the next person in the line of succession to the Crown, being of full age and so forth. I would ask the House to observe that the Bill has been so drawn as to define who the Regent will be by the mere application of the language of the Act of Parliament; that is to say, the Bill does not leave a Regent to be chosen between a range of persons when the time comes—various persons who especially might be passed in review to determine who would be the most suitable choice. We think it is very much better to give the Regent a Parliamentary title, as it were. One could imagine a case in which it might appear convenient and appropriate for the Queen Mother to be Regent; but one can also imagine a case in which that might not be thought to he the most appropriate choice. We are satisfied for several reasons that it is better to leave no place for controversy


or doubt, but to identify the Regent, if we have occasion to turn to his help, by the terms of the Act itself. The most natural person to choose is the person next in the line of succession, if he is of full age and resident in the country, who would succeed to the Throne. I think the House generally will approve of that provision.
Clause 2 deals with the second of the three contingencies mentioned in the Royal Message, namely, the possibility of the total physical, or it might be mental, incapacity of the Sovereign during his reign. It appears that, great as has been the care in the preparation of this Bill, there has been, in the drafting of Clause 2, an arrangement of detail which might not in all circumstances be thought to be quite convenient. If the House will look at Clause 2, they will see that six persons are named as persons who may
declare in writing that they are satisfied on the evidence of physicians or otherwise that the Sovereign is by reason of infirmity of mind or body wholly incapable for the time being of performing the Royal functions,
but that any three of them are enough to give the certificate. The Clause goes on to say that in like manner those persons, or any three of them, may certify that there has been a recovery of the Royal health. One can imagine the rather ridiculous but unlikely situation in which three out of the six take one view and three the other, and so cancel one another out. We propose to avoid even this theoretical possibility by moving in Committee, in line 19, to substitute "four" for "three." Perhaps I might be allowed to say that it was those who drafted it who found out the mistake. I hope it is the only defect in the Bill.
If the House will be good enough now to turn to Clause 6, they will see that it deals with the third contingency, namely, the absence of the Sovereign from the United Kingdom; and it also deals with the event of illness not so extreme as to amount to complete incapacity, but nevertheless such as to make it necessary for day-by-day functions to be discharged in the King's name by somebody else. I do not think I need read the Clause; I hope it is clearly drafted, and, as far as I am aware, it does not call for any correction.

If we have a case of infirmity of mind or body which does not amount to complete incapacity, then no Regent is appointed, because you do not want a Regent in such a case, but certain Royal functions specified in the Letters Patent referred to in the Clause will be discharged by Counsellors of State. The Royal functions specified in the Letters Patent will be limited to those which in the circumstances it is appropriate should be so discharged; and in the event of the Section being used, for example, in the intended absence of the Sovereign from this country, then the Letters Patent would reserve to the Sovereign the personal exercise of his functions in so far as that is found to be practicable. All this, no doubt, has a slightly academic air, but it is the result of a very great deal of careful consideration, and, as I have said, the whole subject has been in the mind of this Government, and, I believe, of the previous Government, for some time.
The objects of the Bill are very simple and straightforward, and I hope they will commend themselves tq the House. The provisions necessary to give effect to these objects are somewhat complicated, and have required very careful consideration. As the King's Message last week indicated, this matter has been under the consideration of successive Governments since the time of the first serious illness of King George V, and, indeed, has been the subject of a great deal of thought and discussion. On the Accession of his present Majesty, it would, in accordance with precedent, be necessary to introduce a Regency Bill on account of the fact that Her Royal Highness Princess Elizabeth is under age; but we have reached the conclusion that, instead of introducing such a Regency Bill—one more in this long list—for a particular possible case, the better course is to submit to Parliament this more comprehensive scheme to cover, not only his particular contingency, but other contingencies which may arise from time to time in which the exercise of the Royal function might become impossible. That is the reason why this Bill was anticipated in the Address moved by the Prime Minister last week as being a Bill to make permanent provision for dealing with any such contingency. I ask the House to give a Second Reading to the


Bill, which, as will be seen, makes permanent provision for dealing with any such contingency which may arise in the future, and therefore will obviate the necessity of considering special measures in the event of special occasions arising.

Mr. Logan: Would the Home Secretary kindly explain the provision in the proviso to Clause 1 for the Dissolution of Parliament by telegram during the absence of the King? Why this novelty?

Sir J. Simon: That does not seem to be very wrong. If the advice to His Majesty that Parliament should be dissolved is advice which His Majesty can act upon personally, it would seem to be a very proper thing to secure such action, and, in these days, there is nothing very remarkable in its being done by telegram.

Mr. Logan: It strikes me as very peculiar. The King can be absent from the country on an important occasion which means the Dissolution of Parliament, and, if a telegram were sent, there could be no guarantee of the signature. It seems a very funny procedure.

Sir J. Simon: The hon. Gentleman can discuss it in Committee if he still thinks so, but I am sufficiently marching with the times to think that sometimes it might be a very good way.

Mr. Logan: You have heard of Little-woods and the coupons.

4.27 p.m.

Mr. Clynes: The House has given more than one indication of its readiness to give a Second Reading to a Bill of this kind. The Government have certainly lost no time in fulfilling the pledge that was given to the House about a week ago; I would that all their promises were as completely fulfilled. I shall be suspected, perhaps not without cause, of being predisposed to differ from the Government, but I confess that with respect to this Measure I should find it almost impossible to quarrel with the right hon. Gentleman, though there is one point, as to the meaning of a Clause to which the right hon. Gentleman did not refer, on which I should like to add a few words later. We have heard, in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, some very interesting historical details, and I cannot find fault even with them. I accept the view that, under our existing monarchical system, it is best not to wait

for some contingency to arise, but to anticipate circumstances such as the three contingencies referred to in the Home Secretary's speech, and to make provision now, by the necessary Parliamentary machinery, for dealing with any such situation when it arises.
I conclude, from the right hon. Gentleman's exposition, that the Bill is in the right hands. In the hands of so distinguished a lawyer as the Home Secretary, the legal aspects of the Bill have been plainly explained to the layman, and it is as a layman that I address but a few words to the House on the Second Reading. I am not learned in the law, and have never been in the hands of the law—a fact which, I imagine, will not raise me in the estimation of my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton). I conclude that there is no controversy whatever on the principle or on the main purpose of the Bill, and I have reached the conclusion that, with the increasing importance of the place in the world of the Dominions which form part of our Empire, it is probable—I go beyond saying it is possible, and say it is probable—that the reigning Sovereign may have cause to be out of the United Kingdom even more than any Sovereign has hitherto. In view of the possibility of such absences, a provision of this kind, in my view, is essential.
This is not a moment for discussing the general position of the Throne in our country, and I shall say no more than that the Throne is accepted as a serviceable and popular institution by all classes in the land. It belongs not to England, but to the Empire, and that emphasises, I think, the argument which I have adduced of the possibility of more frequent visits on the part of the Sovereign to the remotest parts of our Empire. There is perhaps a little employment for the speculative mind in this singular fact, that as the Labour party have grown in this country, Republicanism has declined. I offer no explanation, and I do not connect the two; it is sufficient to draw attention to it as a fact which is beyond dispute. The agreement of the parties in the House is therefore assured, and when we are found in agreement with the Government, the Government may be assured that they are in the right.
Despite that conclusion, may I draw attention to what I will describe as the


principle of Clause 4, Sub-section (2)? This Sub-section imposes a really far-reaching disability upon the Regent, and, as I say, the right hon. Gentleman did not draw attention in his review of the Bill to this point. One of the main virtues of the Constitution is that anything whatever can be done at any moment by Act of Parliament, and it is generally held that no Parliament can ever fetter the hands of any subsequent Parliament, but Clause 4 (2) puts certain legislation out of the power of the Regent, Lords, and Commons. I do not raise this point because it deals with two particular Acts of Parliament, but as a matter of general principle. While there is a Regency and this Sub-section stands, the Bill proposes to make certain legislation impossible by any means whatsoever. The King, who could assent, is replaced by a Regent who cannot, according to the terms of this Sub-section. If the Subsection does make legislation impossible, the result might conceivaly be disastrous; if the Sub-section is simply ineffective on the ground that the Regent, Lords, and Commons must first assent to a Bill repealing Section 4 (2) and then assent to the legislation in question, things are not so serious, but I raise the point in order that the matter might be cleared up and a statement be made in regard to it. I offer, therefore, general support for this Measure on behalf of those with whom I act on this side of the House.

4.35 P.m.

Sir Archibald Sinclair: I could not help differing from one sentence in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Platting (Mr. Clynes), who has just sat down. I should rather have said that when the two Front Benches find themselves in agreement, that is an occasion on which Members on the back benches ought to be most on their guard to scrutinise the legislation which is brought before the House. But on this occasion I rise also to support the Bill, in which there may be, and from what the Secretary of State himself said in introducing the Measure there probably will be, some need of Amendment in Committee; but which in broad outline seems to me admirably framed to give effect to the recommendations contained in His Majesty's Gracious Message and to make prudent provision for the exercise of the Royal authority in certain contingencies.
Everyone will hope that the contingencies in which a Regent would have to be appointed will never arise, but it is none the less our duty to take them into account and to take such action as will prevent constitutional embarrassment and controversy being added to the public sorrow which they would bring in their train. On the other hand, in these days, when the contact between the King and Emperor and his Dominions is closer, more intimate, and more constant than ever before, it is not unnatural to anticipate that occasions will arise more frequently in the future than in the past when it will be convenient and almost imperative to delegate the exercise of the Royal authority to Counsellors of State, and for that purpose the provisions of the Bill seem to be well adapted. The Bill seems to embody a natural response to demands which have resulted from the constitutional development of our country and Empire, and I hope, therefore, it will pass quickly into law.

4.37 P.m.

Mr. Maxton: I always feel a deep sense of regret when I am completely out of sympathy with the general attitude of the House, but I must say I find nothing in common whatever with the point of view that has been expressed by the three previous speakers on this Measure. I enjoyed listening to the Home Secretary's historical survey. It is always good to have one's historical education brought up to date and handled by an expert. I listened to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Platting Division (Mr. Clynes) speaking for the Labour party, and after he had expressed the things which he had to say in very well-chosen language, both my hon. Friend the Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) and myself were at a complete loss to find at what point he expressed either a Socialist point of view or the point of view of a party struggling for the establishment of a great working-class democracy in this country. When I listened to the right hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir A. Sinclair) and recollected how the Liberal candidate for the division in which I was born used to have Republicanism as the first item in his election programme, I did agree with the right hon. Member for the Platting Division that, so far as democratic, Socialist thought is concerned, we are progressing backwards.
To-day we are here seriously and solemnly discussing the advisability of permanently—and the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary on three occasions emphasised the permanent nature of the legislation which he was bringing before the House—placing the ultimate governmental direction of this country in the hands of four or five absolutely unknown persons, defining the future governmental control of this country over posterity, without knowing the personality, character, or mentality of the four or five persons who may at some future time be called upon to exercise the functions laid down in this Measure. Quite frankly, I have not the type of mind that can grasp the common sense of that sort of procedure. [An HON. MEMBER: "Have you read the Bill? "] Yes, I have read it. I have sat up at night pondering over it and asking myself, is it possible that my hon. Friend the Member for Gorbals and myself are mentally defective? We do not think so, but then one has to confront the alternative question, Are the other 613 Members lost to all sense of reason? There is a tag which says:
Oh what a tangled web we weave
When first we practise to deceive!
When one starts trying to put over, on to a mass of educated people, the idea, at this day, that monarchy has some intelligent justification as a governmental form, one has to go on from step to step keeping up the delusion, a delusion which, in my view, received its final quietus when the conception of the divine right of kings was thrown overboard, and which received a terrible knock only a few weeks ago.

Mr. Bellenger: If we had a President, would there not have to be some sort of provision like this?

Mr. Maxton: There certainly would have to be some such provision in any form of government, and I believe in making the provision when one knows the circumstances to be confronted and the men who are available for meeting the circumstances; but what are we asking here? In certain circumstances the Regent would be the Queen Mother. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Well, the Regent might be the Queen Mother. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO."] I am always ready to be corrected, and I must quite frankly admit that when I begin working

among these titles, I am not on what I would call terra cognita.
If the Sovereign is under the age of eighteen years, and unmarried, His mother…
Who is that? What is her title? What is the title of the reigning Monarch? [An HON. MEMBER: "The hon. Member is making the speech."] I was beginning to doubt that I was making the speech; I thought I was interrupting somebody. [Interruption.] I do not mind the matter being treated as a subject of jest at all. That will suit me right down to the ground, because that is how I regard it. In certain circumstances the husband of the Queen or the wife of the King, in the event of illness the Counsellors of State—a general term—shall be the wife or husband of the Sovereign,
and the four persons who, excluding any persons disqualified under this Act from becoming Regents, are next in the line of Succession to the Crown or, if the number of such persons next in the line of Succession is less than four, then all such persons.
They are laid down for all time as the. persons fit to govern this land in the event of certain contingencies happening to the reigning Monarch. [Interruption.] Is that objected to also? I may be wrong but, as I read Sub-section (3), it means that those who lay down the Letters Patent are to decide how many of these persons, but it is these persons on a birth basis. You are tying up the future. The right hon. Gentleman in his introductory speech told us of a Monarch who was insane. If a monarch can be insane the next in the line of succession can be insane, and the one after that, and also the one after that. At any rate, sane or not sane, the one thing that is probably true is that no one of them has any training or experience in the problems of Government.
If the proposal of the Bill had been to meet contingencies by placing responsibility in the hands of the four persons mentioned in Clause 2, the Lord Chancellor, the Speaker of the House of Commons, the Lord Chief Justice of England, and the Master of the Rolls, four men who have occupied responsible places in different aspects of the governmental and administrative life of the country, four men of experience, four men of judgment, four men whom the people living at the particular time when


the problem has to be faced would know, four men holding posts that they could not hold if they had mental defects, I would have said it was a proposition that the House of Commons could have looked at as a reasonable one, but to ask us to tie up responsibility for the holding of a key position in the governmental affairs of the country to the hereditary principle, placing responsibility in the hands of people without qualifications, without experience, and without training, is a complete negation of every democratic principle that I hold, and I certainly shall not be prepared to give my support to this Measure.

4.51 p.m.

Mr. Logan: We are told that foresight is being used in this Bill. No doubt it is necessary that time should be taken by the forelock, but I am at a loss to understand why in the year 1937 whoever is on the Throne should not be able to have any religion he likes. It appears to me to be entirely out of date. I do not find fault with an established faith. I trust that no Member of the House will feel very upset, because there are men of all faiths here—[An HON. MEMBER: "And none"]—and some with none, and I pity them. When I am told that preferential treatment is to be continued under a Regency Bill which is up-to-date and which takes time by the forelock with a view to being prepared against all eventualities, supposing this House passed a Bill, as I understand it the Regent would not be able to give it sanction. I am at a loss to understand the prescribed powers given under a Regency, but ipso facto a Regent should he a substitute for the Monarch. If he is incapacitated, a Regent can be appointed, but in that case, in my opinion, the Regent should carry all the power vested in the Monarch and be able to sign under the jurisdiction of the Government. I should imagine, Monarch or no Monarch, Regent or no Regent, if the House of Commons passes a law there should be no question of anyone standing in the road when, as the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) said, the ordinary use of a rubber stamp seems to be one of the great mental efforts necessary in affixing the Royal signature to a Bill.
I feel that the will of the people at all times should carry weight. I respect the

opinion of every Member of this House and I pay full tribute to the right hon. Gentleman's sincerity, but I came here with one object only, to speak my mind, and, if possible, to change things which I do not feel are up-to-date or are an insult or ought to be deleted from the Statutes of the country. That being so, I feel that we ought to be able to take matters more into our own hands and be more modern and be able to say that we are moving with the times, and advancing the rights of democracy. I believe that this is the most democratic country in the world, but we have to show democracy that there is no ostracism in regard to any citizen, more especially when it is a case of the Monarch claiming a right in the matter of faith. If he is a true lineal descendant and is compos mentis surely, regardless of faith, he ought to be allowed to reign, and I contend that we should no longer be insulted with these words. I feel that we are divesting the Monarch of a right. The question of faith is a personal matter and to me this is an insult. Why should the religion be prescribed, and why should the House of Commons in the year 1937 stoop so low as to say that a Regent, who may perhaps reign for many years, may deny the right of citizens of having what they desire carried by Act of Parliament?

4.59 p.m.

Mr. Beverley Baxter: I rise after what has been described as a family compact betwen the two Front Benches to express the approval of a back-bencher. I am grateful for the simple putting forward of the Bill which we always expect from the Home Secretary, and we are also grateful to the leader of the new Popular Front, who has put humour and a touch of controversy into the discussion. Assuming that he was sincere, I would reassure him on one point. He is worried with fear lest the Counsellors of State should all be in a condition of lunacy. He will find that that is ruled out. Those four persons cannot act as a Council of State if, by any reason, they are disqualified from being Regents. If any of them was insane he could not be a Regent, and, therefore, that should convert the leader of the Popular Front on that point.

Mr. Maxton: Where is this reference to four persons?

Mr. Baxter: The hon. Gentleman got as far as three being insane, and left the


mental condition of the fourth a matter of conjecture to the House. It is on page 4, Clause 6, Sub-section (2). I think that the Home Secretary will bear me out that they could not act. The House will agree that this is the proper place where the perpetuation of the Monarchy or the substitution of Republicanism should be discussed. This House is not easily stampeded. I ask the House, and, in particular the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) whether humanity or civilisation has found any substitute for Monarchy. Look at the world to-day. Compare the condition of this country, say, for the last 25 years, with any country which takes another form of Government. In spite of the voices that are raised against the Constitution under which we are governed, we have yet to find any adequate substitute for Monarchy in this world. Until that time has come, this House will support the system to deal with which this Bill is being passed.

5.3 p.m.

Mr. Gallacher: The hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton), when he was opposing the Abdication Bill, quoted an old and well-known nursery rhyme that will be in the memory of all hon. Members who were present. This Bill is a proof of the correctness of the hon. Member for Bridgeton. The Bill expresses complete lack of confidence in the Monarchy of this country. The Home Secretary says that he could have introduced a normal and ordinary Regency Bill, as has been the case on past occasions, but the situation now is of an entirely different character. There is not only the fact that you have had the abdication of a Monarch, who had been presented as the last word in the ideal man, but you have now a Monarch of whom nobody is sure at all, and you cannot carry on without having some alternative arrangement. Never before in the history of this country was such a Bill contemplated. No other explanation can be given than that the Government do not expect the present Monarch to last out his time. At the same time, while there is a complete lack of confidence in the present Monarch they must try, as they tried through the Abdication Bill, to patch up the unpatchable. Why should any Member ask, where is the substitution for Monarchy? You do not want a substitution for Monarchy. It is

an absolute anomaly. It plays no part at all, but that of a rubber stamp, as has been mentioned, or that of occasionally providing circuses, and that sort of thing.
The Home Secretary told us that the Monarch to-day has a great amount of work to do, but when he tried to tell us what the work really was, it was, "Oh, groups of documents coming down from the Foreign Office to be signed." Does the Monarch have to sign personally these groups of documents, a grant for some mother or some old person or this, that of the other? A private secretary with a rubber stamp does the job. If there is work of an important character, this hereditary principle is very dangerous and undesirable. The Home Secretary says that if we agree to the Bill we shall know who is to be Regent. Of course we shall. We know the name of the one who will be the successor, but we know nothing about character or ability, and we have no chance of knowing. Take the case before the Abdication. In every paper you read, every cinema you visited, and in every lecture-hall where anyone had a chance, there was talk in the most grandiloquent way of the qualities of the ex-King. Never had there been a man with such qualities, and the great masses of the people of this country believed it. Wherever you went, you heard them expressing opinions of regard for the King, but when the Abdication took place, they told us they had been mistaken and that he had been a weakling all the time. The "Times" said it. It is not possible to know the character of a King, other than that, in a very nice way, we can always say that he does not show any particular qualities. If there is important work to be done, the Home Secretary says that it is better to know who is to be the Regent, rather than, when the occasion arises, to choose the Regent from a variety of persons. Would you run your law courts and conduct any of your big cases in such a manner? Would you run any business in the country in such a manner? When the occasion arises for the appointment of a manager, say, of the "Daily Express" or any big undertaking, all the circumstances are taken into account, and the qualities of character, and the abilities of those who make application are considered, and the man best qualified for the job gets it.

Mr. Baxter: If the point of the hon. Member is that the King is nothing but a rubber stamp, why should he be so anxious as to the character of the rubber stamp appointed in his place?

Mr. Gallacher: The hon. Member does not follow my argument. I said that the Home Secretary tried to impress on us the fact that there was important work to be done. I drew attention to the fact that if, as he said, there is important work to be done, are you to relegate the important work to someone who may be totally unqualified to do such important work, or are you to wait until the necessity arises and appoint, for the carrying out of that important work, the very best qualified man you can get? Is not that clear enough? That argument would apply in any business. The very fact that you do not do that and can have a Bill of this sort means that there is nothing in it.

Mr. Baxter: Why worry?

Mr. Gallacher: Because it is being used for a specific purpose. I mentioned in the Debate last year, when discussing the Civil List, that Members on the other side did not know the meaning of the word "loyalty"; that they knew only of profits and were concerned only with profits. As long as the King was concerned to keep the system of profit going, they would keep the King, but when he failed to keep the system going, they would throw him out. Members were indignant, but it was only a few weeks afterwards when this sort of thing happened. They will use the Monarch in order to distract the attention of the people and provide all kinds of diversions. It is not our business, when the economic foundations begin to decay, and cracks show in the superstructure, to patch up the superstructure. It is our business to get rid of the rubbish and work nearer the foundation. That is why I oppose the Bill, as I opposed the Abdication Bill. The Government just get out of one difficulty into another.
The Home Secretary discovered, as a result of his very acute legal mind, that of the six persons specified in Clause 2, three are given power to make a decision as to whether the Sovereign is sane or insane. He says that they are to change that number to four. He gets himself into this fix. This is a permanent Bill, and a Queen or King may be unmarried,

and that would leave five persons. You would then have to have four out of five, and that would be a very difficult job. The persons include the King and Queen, the successor, and the others. The whole Bill is part of the process—a very necessary process now—of patching up and trying to cover the general decay that is everywhere in the Monarchical system in this country. I tell hon. and right hon. Members that they are playing with this House and playing with themselves in thinking that they can continue to fool the people of this country. The people are not going to be fooled any more. They will take part in some of the celebrations, but down beneath it all is the recognition of the fact that all that is represented in this Bill is dying very rapidly, and I oppose everything connected with it.

5.14 p.m.

The Attorney-General (Sir Donald Somervell): The decay of Republicanism, which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Platting (Mr. Clynes) said was coincident with, but not necessarily caused by, the rise of the Labour party, has obviously left unaffected the hon. Gentleman the Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher). His speech seemed to have very little to do with the Bill which the House is considering, though we are grateful to the hon. Member for his sympathy in the difficulties in which he thinks we may get on certain Clauses of the Bill. These remarks apply to a lesser extent to the speech of the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton). His views on the general topic of the Monarchy are well known to us, but that subject does not arise on this Bill. This Bill is to make provision, assuming that there is a Monarchy, for certain eventualities that have to be provided for. Under any other Constitution, whether it be a Republic or a Dictatorship, or a Monarchy, provision must be made for eventualities such as sickness or absence from the realm.

Mr. Buchanan: You would not do this sort of thing in regard to Mr. Speaker.

The Attorney-General: There is provision in regard to that, but there is no provision on the Statute Book for the emergency for which we are providing in regard to the Monarchy. I do not want to enter into the controversy which


the hon. Member for Bridgeton started as to whether he and the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) are sane and the rest of us insane, or vice versa. It reminds me of the story of the gentleman who came back from sitting on a jury and said that II more obstinate other men he had never met. I should like to express on behalf of my right hon. Friend the appreciation by the Government of the support given to the Bill by the right hon. Member for Platting (Mr. Clynes) and the right hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir A. Sinclair) and other speakers. There is very little for me to say. The right hon. Member for Platting made reference to Clause 4 (2), and reference was also made to that Clause by the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. Logan). The hon. Member for the Scotland Division raised no objection to the words down to the word "Crown" in line 34, but he objected to the subsequent words. It seems to me that he will have to take up that matter with hon. and right hon. Members representing Scotland. I am sure that hon. Members will appreciate the general feeling which lay behind the hon. Member's speech, but there are certain historic reasons which lie behind these matters.

Mr. Logan: It was a bargain.

The Attorney-General: It was a Treaty. The Lord Advocate has been sitting on this bench with the Act of Union in his hand and he pointed out to me that the safeguarding of this particular Act of the Scottish Parliament was expressly mentioned in the Act of Union, and that is the historic reason why it appears here. The sovereignty of Parliament undoubtedly exists and must remain. Parliament has the power to repeal any Act.

Mr. Logan: May I mention that in regard to Clause 4 (2) it is provided that the Regent shall not have the power to assent. I take it that whilst he would be Regent during the incapacity of the Monarch, even if Parliament passed it, he would not sanction it.

The Attorney-General: Parliament could, if it so desired, repeal this Subsection. The Sovereignty of Parliament is the one thing which no Parliament can hamper in the future.

5.20 p.m.

Mr. Buchanan: I should like to make a few comments on the speech of the Attorney-General. He said that there had been no real criticism of the Bill, and expressed thanks to his friends of the Labour party and the Liberal party for their support. I do not deny the right of hon. or right hon. Members to support the Measure, or the right of the Attorney-General to thank them for their support, but if I thank any hon. Members on the other side of the House for their support on any occasion, members of the Labour party say: "Look at your Tory friends." To-night I would say to them: "Look at your friends on this side below the Gangway, and on the other side." It is not the first time that such a thing has been done. On the occasion of the Anomalies Act all parties combined to rob the poor, just as all parties are joining to-night to defend the Royal Family.
We did not raise the Republican issue to-day. That issue was raised by the right hon. Member for Platting (Mr. Clynes) who made the comment that Republicanism had gone down while the Labour party had gone up. If Republicanism has been dragged into this Debate the responsibility for it ought to be imputed to the quarter whence it came. Incidentally, I may say that we are glad to see the right hon. Member for Platting here, because we so seldom see him. We oppose the Bill on other grounds and not on the question of Republicanism. Hitherto, when a Regency was being appointed the Government of the day introduced a Regency Bill. That meant that on each occasion the House of Commons was able to review the whole position in regard to the Monarchy. The House of Commons seldom gets an opportunity to review the Monarchy. It is only when there is a constitutional crisis that that opportunity arises.
By this Bill the Government are seeking to take away one of the few chances that the House of Commons have, and ought to have, to review the position of the Monarchy. The Monarchy ought not to be something apart. It ought to be subject to review in this House, but this Bill takes away the opportunity of such a review, quite apart from the question whether Monarchy be good or bad. If the Labour party were upholding the rights of the Opposition and of this House


they would protest against any limitation of the opportunity to discuss the Monarchy. By this Bill you are saying that Parliament's right to criticise the Monarchy in the future shall be considerably limited. But for this Bill Parliament would have to consider a new Regency Bill on every occasion, and the Monarchy would then be the topic of discussion.
Hon. Members may sneer at the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher), but I can see a position arising, whether hon. Members like it or not, which requires attention. The line which we took on the last Bill affecting the Monarchy was unpopular, but we suffered nothing on that issue as compared with what we suffered in regard to our action on the Jubilee. On the last issue I have no doubt that we could have fought any election and won it, but on the question of the Jubilee the position would have been different. To-day there is a growing feeling on our side with respect to this matter, and, having regard to that feeling, we ought to have a chance of reviewing the Monarchy from time to time when the occasion arises. The House is to-day declaring that it will not put the Monarchy into the melting-pot. The House is afraid of the democratic Chamber examining the Monarchy as it examines every other problem. I leave aside for a moment the question of whether the Monarchy is good, bad or indifferent. By this Bill you are establishing the Monarchy practically for all time, and taking away our right to discuss it, or at any rate limiting it. That

is why I object to the Bill, and not because the Monarchy is good or bad.

A Bill of this character has no right to tie up a future Parliament, and I shall make every effort to divide the House on it. The Attorney-General said that provision has to be made for the President of a Republic. What happens in regard to Mr. Speaker? You make provision for the present Speaker but not for the next Speaker. When the present Speaker goes, we start afresh, and we can exercise our right, but under this Bill provision for a Monarchy goes on for all time. Would you do it for a Prime Minister or for anybody else? What right have these people to claim a privilege? Are they any better than the ordinary man? Are they any more capable than any Members in this House? Have they any right to get this privileged position? The House of Commons has decided, or will decide, the question for this Parliament; they have beaten me, and I shall accept the decision, but I am not prepared to let it affect the next Parliament without protesting. The Liberals more than any party in the early days stood up for the rights of Parliament. I do not mean that sarcastically, because they have a right to be proud of what they did for the defence of liberty. The Dilkes would never have stood for this Bill. To-day you are doing more than creating a Regency; you are taking away the power of future Parliaments, and I protest against it.

Question put, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

The House divided: Ayes, 305; Noes, 1.

Division No. 61.]
AYES.
[5.28 p.m.


Acland, R. T. O. (Barnstaple)
Benson, G.
Cartland, J. R. H.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Blair, Sir R.
Carver, Major w. H.


Adamson, W. M.
Blindell, Sir J.
Cary, R. A.


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
Bossom, A. C.
Castlereagh, Viscount


Albery, Sir Irving
Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Cayzer, Sir C. W. (City of Chester)


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'kn'hd)

Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)


Ammon, C. G.
Bower, Comdr. R. T.
Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)


Anderson, Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.)
Bowyer, Capt. Sir G. E. W.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir A. (Br.W.)


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Brass, Sir W.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)


Apsley, Lord
Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Channon, H.


Aske, Sir R. W.
Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)


Assheton, R.
Bromfield, W.
Chapman, Sir S. (Edinburgh, S.)


Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.)
Brown, Col. O. C. (Hexham)
Clarke, F. E.


Atholl, Duchess of
Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)
Clarke, Lt.-Col. R. S. (E. Grinstead)


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Clarry, Sir Reginald


Barclay-Harvey, Sir C. M.
Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.)
Cluse, W. S.


Barnes, A. J.
Bull, B. B.
Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.


Barrie, Sir C. C.
Burke, W. A.
Colfox, Major W. P.


Baxter, A. Beverley
Burton, Col. H. W.
Colville, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. D. J.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Butler, R. A.
Cook, Sir T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.)


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Campbell, Sir E. T.
Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)


Bennett, Capt. Sir E. N.
Cape, T.
Cooper, Rt. Hn. A. Duff (W'st'r S. G'gs)




Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Hudson, R. S. (Southport)
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)


Courthope, Col. Sir G. L.
Hunter, T.
Remer, J. R.


Critchley, A.
Hurd, Sir P. A.
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)


Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir T. W. H.
Ridley, G.


Crooke, J. S.
John, W.
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.
Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)
Ropner, Colonel L.


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Jones, L. (Swansea W.)
Ross, Major Sir R. D. (Londonderry)


Cross, R. H.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)


Crowder, J. F. E.
Keeling, E. H.
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.


Culverwell, C. T.
Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)


Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)
Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)
Salmon, Sir I.


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)
Salt, E. W.


Davison, Sir W. H.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Samuel, M. R. A. (Putney)


Dawson, Sir P.
Lambert, Rt. Hon. G.
Sandeman, Sir N. S.


De Chair, S. S.
Lathan, G.
Sanderson, Sir F. B.


De la Bère, R.
Lawson, J. J.
Sandys, E. D.


Denmart, Hon. R. D.
Leach, W.
Scott, Lord William


Denville, Alfred
Leckie, J. A.
Seely, Sir H. M.


Dixon, Capt. Rt. Hon. H.
Lee, F.
Selley, H. R.


Dobbie, W.
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Shakespeare, G. H.


Doland, G. F.
Lees-Jones, J.
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)


Dorman-Smith, Major R. H.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.
Shepperson, Sir E. W.


Drewe, C.
Little, Sir E. Graham-
Short, A.


Duckworth, G. A. V. (Salop)
Lloyd, G. W.
Silkin, L.


Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)
Looker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S.
Simmonds, O. E.


Dugdale, Major T. L.
Loftus, P. C.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.


Duncan, J. A. L.
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Simpson, F. B.


Dunglass, Lord
MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.
Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)


Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)
M'Connell, Sir J.
Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Smith, L. W. (Hallam)


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Scot. U.)
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)


Ellis, Sir G.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)
Smithers, Sir W.


Elliston, Capt. G. S.
McEntee, V. La T.
Somervell. Sir D. B. (Crewe)


Elmley, Viscount
McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Emmott, C. E. G. C.
McKie, J. H.
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Macnamara, Capt. J. R. J.
Spears, Brigadier-General E. L.


Evans, Capt. A. (Cardiff, S.)
Makins, Brig.-Gen. E.
Spens, W. P.


Everard, W. L.
Mander, G. le M.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'd)


Findlay, Sir E.
Manningham-Buller, Sir M.
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Fleming, E. L.
Margesson, Capt, Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.


Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
Markham, S. F.
Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)


Foot, D. M.
Marshall, F.
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Fremantle, Sir F. E.
Mathers, G.
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Furness, S. N.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Fyfe, D. P. M.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.


Ganzoni, Sir J.
Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)
Sutcliffe, H.


Gardner, B. W.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Morris, O. T. (Cardiff, E.)
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)


Gibson, R. (Greedeck)
Morris-Jones, Sir Henry



Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir J.
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
Thorne, W.


Glyn, Major Sir R. G. C.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Tinker, J. J.


Gower, Sir R. V.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
Touche, G. C.


Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Muff, G.
Tree, A. R. L. F.


Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.
Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.


Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.
Munro, P.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Gridley, Sir A. B.
Naylor, T. E.
Turton, R. H.


Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.
Viant, S. P.


Grimston, R. V.
O'Connor, Sir Terence J.
Walkdan, A. G.


Groves, T. E.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Guy, J. C. M.
Owen, Major G.
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)


Hanbury, Sir C.
Palmer, G. E. H.
Warrender, Sir V.


Hannah, I. C.
Patrick, C. M.
Wayland, Sir W. A


Hannon, Sir P. J. H.
Peake, O.
Wedderburn, H. J. S.



Peat, C. U.
Wells, S. R.


Harbord, A.
Peters, Dr. S. J.
Wiokham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.


Harris, Sir P. A.

Williams, C. (Torquay)


Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)
Petherick, M.
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Henderson, A. (Kingtwinford)
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.


Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.
Wise, A. R.


Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.
Porritt, R. W.
Withers, Sir J. J.


Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-
Potts, J.
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Herbert, A. P. (Oxford U.)
Pownall, Lt.-Col. Sir Assheton
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Herbert, Major J A. (Monmouth)
Price, M. P.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Herbert, Capt. Sir S. (Abbey)
Procter, Major H. A.
Wright, Squadron-Leader J. A. C.


Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Radford, E. A.
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Hills, Major Rt. Hon. J. W. (Ripon)
Raikes, H. V. A. M.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Holmes, J. S.
Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.



Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.
Ramsden, Sir E.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Hopkin, D.
Rathbone, Eleanor (English Univ's.)
Sir George Penny and Lieut.-


Hore-Belisha, Rt. Hon. L.
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)
Colonel Llewellin.


Horsbrugh, Florence






NOES.


Buchanan, G.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. Maxton and Mr. Gallacher.


Bill read a Second time.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House, for Thursday.—[Captain Margesson.]

PUBLIC WORKS LOANS BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

5.40 p.m.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lieut.-Colonel Colville): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
As the House is aware, the Public Works Loans Bill is generally a non-contentious Measure, and on this occasion there is nothing in the Bill of a contentious character. Its main purpose is to fix the amount which may be advanced from the Local Loans Fund during the period between its passing and the passing of its successor to the Public Works Loans Commissioners for use by them in advances to local authorities. The amount proposed in the Bill is £20,000,000, which is the same as that fixed in the Act of 1935. This provision is dealt with in the first Clause of the Bill. Clause 2 provides for the writing-off from the assets of the fund of certain advances which are not likely to be recovered. In accordance with the provisions of Section 15 of the National Debt and Local Loans Act, 1887, provision will be made in the Estimates to be laid before the House for payments to the fund of the amount to be written off, if the Bill becomes law. Except for an amount of £200 due from the Trustees of Eyemouth Harbour these advances are not remitted but remain as a debt to the Exchequer. Clause 3 deals with the sum due from the Eyemouth Harbour Trustees, which differs from other sums in this respect, that for the reasons set out in the Financial Memorandum it is proposed to remit this sum of £200, together with the interest due. There is nothing unusual in the Bill this year. It follows lines which are well known to the House and which have been accepted on previous occasions. Therefore I formally move the Second Reading and shall be glad to answer any questions which may arise in the course of the Debate.

5.44 p.m.

Mr. Benson: I want to repeat very strongly the protest I made when the last Public Works Loans Bill was discussed,

at the extraordinary dilatoriness with which the Local Loans accounts are presented to this House. This is an important Bill; it deals with large sums of money. It involves £20,000,000 this year, but the accounts on which we are supposed to discuss the Bill are now two years old. The very latest accounts bring us only up to March, 1935, and it is impossible, seriously to discuss a Bill when our accounts are so hopelessly out of date. Moreover, there is nothing in the accounts themselves which can justify such extraordinary delay. Unquestionably the accounts are complicated, but anybody who knows anything about accounts and the activities of the Local Loans Commissions knows perfectly well that the accounts can be made up by any accountant in a couple of days. Yet it is 11 months since last year's accounts ended, and there are still no accounts before the House. There is no excuse for that extraordinary delay.
I would like, in passing, to compare the dilatoriness of the Treasury with the attitude of the Public Works Loans Commissioners who, within three months of the end of the year, had issued their report, which is a great deal more complicated and requires a great deal more work than the mere balancing-up of the actual accounts, for it is a report on the work done and a very careful analysis of the year's figures. Nevertheless, that report is available within less than three months of the end of the year, whereas the mere balancing-up of the accounts apparently takes a full 12 months. I suggest to the Financial Secretary that the House is not being treated with the respect to which it is entitled. The House has no right to discuss a Bill based on accounts which are 24 months out of date.
I would like also to remind the right hon. Gentleman that the Public Works Loans Act, 1935, contained a Clause to the effect that the accounts were to be recast, but now, in 1937, we are still discussing this matter on the basis of the accounts in their old form. There is no difficulty in this matter. The accounts should be published at latest by June. The Commissioners are able to issue their report, which means that the accounts are made up, and they are able to issue their complicated analysis of those accounts, and the Treasury could issue their balance sheet by the same


time. In order that we might be able to discuss these matters within a reasonable time, the Public Works Loans Bill ought to be introduced in June; the Bill ought to follow immediately the accounts are issued, and not be pushed in at any time, irrespective of whether or not we have the current accounts.
I ask hon. Gentlemen opposite to realise that I am not trying to make a party point of this, for it is a matter for the House of Commons and it concerns hon. Gentlemen opposite just as much as it concerns us. I suggest that the point is an important one, for the accounts of the Public Works Loans Board are by no means in a healthy state. It may be a surprising suggestion that a fund which has shown a surplus on income of over £2,000,000 for several years should be in an unhealthy state, but the fact remains that there are in the accounts and the activities of the Public Works Loans Board certain things which will ultimately make that account entirely insolvent, and the insolvency will be due to the extraordinarily incompetent way in which the Public Works Loans Board has been financed in the past.
I would like for a moment or two to deal with the history of this financing. Until 1920 the capital involved in this annual Bill was comparatively small, not amounting to more than £78,000,000, but from 1920 to 1932, owing to the immense expansion in housing activities by local authorities, something like £211,000,000 in cash was borrowed. In other words, during the 12 years from 1920 to 1932, three-quarters of the present cash capital of the fund was borrowed, and it was borrowed on local loans 3 per cent. stock which was issued at fantastic discounts, in some cases as low as 50, redeemable at par. The result is that, although the cash borrowing was only £211,000,000, the stock issued was £350,000,000. Hon. Members will find the melancholy facts stated on page 5 of the accounts, where they will see that there is an adverse balance on the Local Loans Fund of £125,500,000. The price which the Government pay for the money borrowed is 4½ per cent., within a few coppers, but they are busily engaged in lending that money at 3¼ per cent., so that on every loan they make there is a definite loss of interest amounting to 1¼ per cent. During the last three years—1934–35,

1935–36, and 1936–37—they have lent something like £35,000,000; the net loss has been £400,000 a year, arid the bulk of that money has been lent for 40 years. The £20,000,000 with which the present Bill deals will again be lent at 3¼ per cent., and will again involve the country in a heavy annual loss, which will be added to the £400,000 a year that has already been lost. Year by year, unless there is an extraordinary rise in rates of interest, the activities of the Local Loans Board will steadily reduce that annual surplus until it becomes an annual deficit.
Another interesting point, which equally is fraught with trouble for the future, is that the bulk of the loans to local authorities are made upon a basis of repayment known as annuities. The effect of an annuity basis for repayments is that a fixed annual sum is repaid over a given period of years, part of that sum being interest and part of it capital. At the beginning of the period, a very large proportion is interest and a very small proportion capital, but at the end of the period a very large proportion is capital repayment and a very minor fraction interest, the result being that over the next few years there will be a steadily increasing repayment of capital. I notice that when there were fairly stable conditions and when there was £78,000,000 borrowed at 3 per cent. and lent at about 3 per cent., the repayments and loans more or less balanced each other; but the tremendous expansion of borrowing by local authorities from 1920 to 1932 and the tremendous borrowing by the Public Loans Board to meet that, will mean that although repayments of the present loans are low, they will increase steadily, and the probability is that towards the end of the period of repayment of loans granted from 1920 to 1932, there will be an enormous influx of money to an amount far greater than can be laid out. The result will be that the Local Loans Board will not only be lending at 1¼ per cent. per annum loss, but may find itself with steadily accumulating funds for which there is no outlet except Government stock, which pays an even lower rate than is obtained from the local authorities. Therefore, it is very probable that the annual deficit will be increased on that account also. It is possible already to see this process of a steady increase in repayments at work.


In 1932, the repayments amounted to £7,700,000, whereas the figure for 1935 was £10,000,000 repayments, an increase of £2,250,000.
That is not entirely due to the action of the sinking fund. Part of it is due to heavy premature repayments, but even premature repayments are likely to increase as the period of time when the money has been borrowed at high rates runs out, and the local authorities can make repayment on a much smaller penalty premium than at the present time. Consequently, from whatever point of view one looks at the matter, the financial condition of the fund will be in a rather parlous state in a very few years. I am well aware that at the present moment the Board is lending out more than the repayments, and that there is no immediate prospect of its having surplus funds; but that increased activity in making loans is due almost entirely to the Slum Clearance Act passed by the Labour Government, and unless the activities under that Act continue during the next 20 or 30 years, which seems to me unlikely, the time will come when the fund will have a large amount of surplus money of which it cannot get rid.
While referring to the question of premiums on premature repayments, I would ask the Financial Secretary to explain why it is that the Treasury have made an arrangement by which, when a local authority wishes to repay earlier than is prescribed in the terms of its mortgage deed, the Treasury charge a premium, but when a private borrower under the Agricultural Credits Act wishes to repay, he is not charged a premium, the premium being credited to the Public Works Loans Fund at the expense of public money? If hon. Members will look at the accounts of the Public Works Loans Board for the last 5o years, they will find that not a penny has been lost by loans to local authorities—I am not referring to harbour boards and such bodies, but to local authorities. Very heavy losses have been made on account of loans under the Agricultural Credits Act. Yet borrowers under that Act, who are bad borrowers, are placed in a very much more favourable situation when it is a matter of a premature repayment than are the municipal authorities who have been absolutely gilt-edged in their repayments. I think that

is a point which the Financial Secretary ought to explain.
The Local Loans Account is an excellent example of how financing ought not to be done. The money ought to have been borrowed at 3, 4, 5 or 6 per cent. as the case might be, and issued at par with power to redeem. Instead of that it was issued as low as 50, redeemable at par, with the result that those people who took up local loans stock at 50 have all this time been receiving 6 per cent. on their money, and if at any future time there is a surplus in the hands of the board, the people who have lent the money will receive not merely the 6 per cent., but a premium of 100 per cent. That is an example of thoroughly bad financing.

6.2 p.m.

Mr. Duncan: I do not think the Bill ought to go through without attention being called to the table in Part II of the Schedule relating to loans under the Agricultural Credits Act. That Act has resulted in real losses in past years, but the losses in most cases have related to loans granted under the early operation of the Act, in 1923 and 1924. With the natural tendency in those days to lend money, so that men could be enabled to own their own farms, there may have been some justification for making loans to borrowers who were not very stable financially. But some of the loans which we are writing off to-day are of a later date. The last one, for example, is dated 1928, and by this time I should have thought that the Treasury would have been able to value a farm more closely than was possible at the beginning of the scheme, and also that they would have been better able to assess the ability of the tenant and prospective owner of the farm to keep up his payments.
I call attention in particular to the first loan in Part II of the Schedule. This relates to Bottom Lodge Farm, Sawtry, in the county of Huntingdon, and the date of the loan is 1927. The farm was valued at £4,000 in 1926, and in July, 1934, seven years later, the board were advised to accept an offer of about half, or £2,300 to be exact. That seems an enormous drop in value in seven years, particularly at a period when agricultural values were more or less stabilised. The last case in point of time seems to be an extraordinary one. The loan was granted


in 1928, and amounted to £787. It was advanced on the property known as Gamble Mead, Wivelsfield, in the county of Sussex. In the same year the borrower defaulted and the board took possession of the property. It was put up for sale by auction but the reserve price was not reached. A tenant was eventually found but the tenant failed and refused to pay rent. An order for forfeiture of the lease was obtained with a judgment for about £50, and that has not been paid either. It seems to be an extraordinarily bad case, and I hope that the Treasury will not have to bring such cases to the House again.
There is one other point. These cases have all been dealt with by the board some time ago. I do not know whether their policy has been to make the best of a bad job, and get these items cleared off their accounts as soon as possible, or to see whether, if the borrower is allowed to stay in the farm, it is possible for him, over a period of years, to make good. I suggest that now when agricultural prices are rising and when agriculture is beginning to look more prosperous, a more humane policy ought to be adopted, whatever may have been done in the past, so that the tenant borrower who has some reasonable chance of making a farm a success should be allowed to do so.

6.7 p.m.

Mr. Morgan Jones: I do not propose to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benson) over all the ground which he has so ably covered. I think it possible that there may be a simple explanation of the first point which he raised. However, I shall not try to debate the Government's case for them, and I leave that explanation to the Financial Secretary. As to his second point, namely, that of lending at a lower rate than the rate at which the money was originally borrowed, I submit that my hon. Friend's case requires an answer, and I hope the Financial Secretary will tell us what is the justification of the line taken by the Public Works Loans Board in this respect.
Before I come to the question of general principle which I propose to raise, I would like the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to explain a difficulty which presents itself to me in these accounts. There may be a simple explanation of this point also,

but the fact that it is not apparent to me shows that the presentation of the accounts is not as clear as it ought to be, if they are to be followed by people—possibly obtuse people—like myself. In the statement of particulars attached to the Bill relating to loans under the Agricultural Credits Act to private individuals, we find details of a loan made to two persons named William and Albert Edward Barnes. An advance was made to these gentlemen in 1927. In this table the purpose of the loan is indicated and then the amount, which is £3,000. The next column sets out the amount repaid, which is given as £1,927. Does that mean the amount repaid by the borrowers themselves? If it is the amount which the borrowers themselves had already repaid before defaulting, there ought to be some explanation of the figures which follow. If £1,927 of the original amount has been paid, then obviously £1,073 is left outstanding, but on examining the observations at the side of the table we find that in 1934 the board were advised to accept an offer for the property of £2,300, plus tenant right amounting to £92, and the property was accordingly disposed of. Yet when they accepted the offer of £2,300 we are told that £1,073 still had to be written off. I confess I do not understand it. The same principle appears to apply in each of these cases. As I say, there is probably a simple explanation which presents itself at once to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, and I hope he will take us into his confidence and tell us the answer to this puzzle. The farm having been sold for £2,300 I cannot understand how £1,073 could still be left outstanding, and I think an explanation on that point would be helpful to all of us.
Having presented that proposition to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, I wish to support what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield in relation to the treatment accorded to borrowers under the Agricultural Credits Act compared with that accorded to the public authorities. I am interested in the operation of the Agricultural Credits Act, because I had the privilege of presiding over the committee which dealt with that Measure upstairs, a good many years ago now, and I have not heard of any serious complaints as to its operation. Its purpose was to help farmers to borrow


at a cheaper rate than they would otherwise be able to obtain, and so to assist the carrying on of farming operations. There were critics of the Measure then who said that in practice it would not make borrowing much easier for the farmers as compared with borrowing in the ordinary way from the banks. However, the discussion on that point is now all over; the Measure has become an Act, and there it is.
My hon. Friend submitted that the Public Works Loans Commissioners seem to be more indulgent towards borrowers who happen to be agriculturists than they are to public authorities, and that is an important point. My hon. Friend justly claims, and it is something of which the country ought to be proud, that the public authorities who borrow from the Commissioners have an admirable record in the matter of meeting their liabilities, vis-a-vis the Public Works Loans Board. When we remember the serious vicissitudes through which local authorities in various parts of the country have passed during the last few years, it is a triumph for them that they have done so well. But as they have done so well, it is a rather serious matter if the suggestion can be sustained that the Public Works Loans Commissioners are more indulgent to private borrowers than to these very good customers, the public authorities. My hon. Friend referred to the question of repayments. There are two classes of people to whose cases I would direct the attention of the Financial Secretary. One class does not, strictly speaking, come within the purview of our discussion, but I may be allowed to cite the case in order to make the contrast complete. There are local authorities who borrow from the Public Works Loans Commissioners and then lend that money to private concerns such as companies.

Mr. Benson: And individuals.

Mr. Jones: They lend to individuals also, but for the moment I am concerned with companies. For instance, there are cases in which public authorities have borrowed from the Commissioners and then lent to colliery companies to enable those companies to build houses in their areas. A case has been brought to my attention lately—not from my own area—of a local authority borrowing money from the Commissioners and lending to a

colliery company. In time this company sold out to another company, and the second company proceeded at once to give notice to the local authority that it proposed to repay the loan. This created a problem because the company avoided paying anything by way of premium to the local authority in exchange for the right to repay before the appointed time. The local authority cannot repay to the Public Works Loans Commissioners without paying a premium, but the company to whom the loan was sublet could escape it. The consequence was that this authority was mulcted in a bill of something like £17,000—a pretty stiff proposition. I believe that the Treasury has made arrangements with the Rural District Councils' Association, and perhaps the Urban District Councils' Association as well, that when local authorities repay their loans before the appointed time, they can be excused three-quarters of the premium. Even so, it does seem a little hard that local authorities should in cases like this be mulcted in an unfortunate financial burden. I wonder whether in cases where a company has borrowed from the local authority and repays the loan, the local authority concerned can be excused having to pay a premium to the Public Works Loans Commissioners.
The other case to which I wish to draw attention is a little difficult. It is not one for which I can charge the Treasury or the Public Works Loans Commissioners with any special responsibility, but I venture to bring it before the Treasury once again. It is to the interests of the Treasury and the Government and, indeed, of local government generally, that heavy financial burdens should be lightened as much and as speedily as possible, because the more these burdens are lightened the more efficiently will local authorities be able to discharge their responsibilities. My hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) and I come from very distressed areas, and I would ask the Treasury once again to see whether they cannot, through the Public Works Loans Commissioners, come to the aid of local authorities such as we represent. I have stated this case here before, and I venture to do it again because it is important. There are local authorities which in the days immediately after the War, found themselves with vast schemes of public improvement confronting them. They had embarked on them under pressure


from the Government. Reports by Government authorities had called attention to the necessity for this, that and the other, and in the pre-war days the local authorities had determined to go ahead with this or that scheme. Then the War came. The Government said the schemes must stop and they brought the whole Government machinery to compel them to be stopped. It was public policy that made the Government insist upon the stopping of these works.
The result was that a job which was begun before the War for £250,000 could not be completed after the War for less than £750,000. As a case in point, there is an authority in my area which proposed to construct a sewerage scheme to serve six local authorities, and it was to cost about £250,000. The War came and the scheme was stopped. When the War ended and we wanted to resume the work, we found that in the new circumstances a task which was to cost us £250,000 would cost us nearly £800,000. Similarly, a water scheme which would have cost £750,000 before the War cost nearly £2,000,000 after the War. Because the Government had held up this work we had, after the War, to scramble with innumerable local authorities all over the country in order to get a lender for these vast sums of money. There was such a struggle for a potential lender in the money market that the lenders were in a position to lay down their own terms. They said, "Before we will lend you money not only must you agree to pay a higher rate of interest, but you shall not have the money unless you accept the loan without the possibility of repayment for another 30 or 40 years." In the case I have mentioned we had to borrow—not from the Public Works Loans Commissioners it is true, but from insurance companies—at the rate of 7¼ per cent. We have seen money become cheaper and cheaper until it can now be obtained at from 2½ per cent. to 3 per cent., and yet we in the distressed areas are condemned for another 20 years to pay 7¼ per cent. It is a monstrous proposition and a colossal burden upon the local authorities. It has effects in other ways. In order to meet this enormous burden, rents of houses have to be fixed at shillings per week more than they need be, so that the people are crippled on every hand.
I admit that this is not directly the job of the Public Works Loans Commissioners, but I think that the Government, through the Commissioners, should really face the problem and see whether they cannot bring some sort of machinery to bear, even to the extent of providing mandatory compulsory powers, to bring to an end these dreadful burdens that are imposed on local authorities. The Conversion Loan was, after all, the application of compulsion to people who had lent money to the State. Why should not these companies be compelled to undergo some sacrifice in order to relieve the local authorities of this disastrous burden? We cannot charge the Public Works Loans Commissioners with any failure in this matter, because it is not directly their affair, but I seize this opportunity to ask the Treasury to consider the powers under which the Loan Board has to borrow and to see whether, in the course of amending these powers, they cannot do something to remedy a grievance which is very distressing to many local authorities. If they could do that, it would bring a message of hope to many areas.

6.27 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Colville: I can speak again only with the leave of the House, and, if that is granted, it would perhaps be convenient if I answered some of the points raised during the Debate. I do not know whether I can answer all without notice, but I will attempt to deal with as many as possible. The hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benson) raised the question of the date of the publication of the accounts of the Local Loans Fund. He pointed out that the report of the Public Works Loan Board was available for 1935–36, but he complained that the Local Loans Fund account was not before hon. Members for a recent period. I have been looking into that matter because I recognise that it would be convenient for the House to have this account before it for as recent a date as possible when considering this Bill. This year the winding-up of the surplus income account has involved a certain amount of inter-Departmental discussion on the details of winding-up and, in particular, on the valuation at which the assets of the surplus income account should be transferred to the Local Loans Fund. This has contributed to the delay in introducing these accounts, which are not yet available


and will not be available for a few weeks. I have made a note of the hon. Member's point, which has in fact been raised before, and I hope that it will be possible in a normal year to have the accounts out considerably earlier. I cannot promise that the accounts will be publisher at a date before the Bill is presented to the House, because that depends on Parliamentary time, which is not under my control, and it also depends on the requirements of the fund. The Bill is not, strictly speaking, an annual one which comes in a particular month of each year, but it is presented as required in order to put the fund in a position to meet its obligations.

Mr. Benson: Would it not be correct to say that the Bill is almost invariably introduced every 12 months, despite the fact that not more than 20 or 30 per cent. of the fund may have been dissipated. Two years ago a Bill was introduced despite the fact that there was still £12,000,000 available. Therefore, is it true to say that the time at which the Bill is presented must be conditioned by the state of the fund? It is the Parliamentary practice, to which there have been very few exceptions, that it shall be an annual Bill.

Lieut.-Colonel Colville: I think my answer stands, that it does not follow that the Bill must be presented in a particular month each year, though in point of practice it has in general been an annual Bill. The last Bill was presented in 1935 and this one was actually presented, I think, before we rose for Christmas, though it is being dealt with now. As regards the finding of Parliamentary time, the hon. Member will appreciate that that is a matter about which I cannot make any promise, but the point has been noted. I think I have given an answer which will satisfy the House. It is right to point out, as I think the hon. Member did mention, that the report of the operation of the Public Works Loan Board is available and gives a great deal of information which is germane to the matter we are discussing. As to the other points which have been raised, the hon. Member for Chesterfield took rather a gloomy view about present conditions and about the future of the fund, but that is not the

view we take. The Treasury, which never sleeps—

Mr. Benson: It was asleep when these transactions were undertaken.

Lieut.-Colonel Colville: —keeps an eye on the condition of the fund and constantly oversees its operations. The position, I am advised, is that the fund is at present solvent and that the fears which the hon. Member has expressed are not generally entertained. This is a time of low money rates, but who will be bold enough to prophesy that these rates will always continue? The hon. Member's gloomy forecast was based principally on not only a continuance but perhaps even a lowering of money rates. When we come to the question of borrowing, the hon. Member seemed to suggest that at one time the Treasury was asleep. I must take him up on that issue. The borrowings for this fund in the years 1920, 1921 and 1922 were certainly made at a time when money was dear. The issues were made at a figure which, of course, represented the condition of the money market at the time. Since 1922 there has been no public issue of stock, and the point I wish to make is that at that time no one could have borrowed money more cheaply than, in fact, was done. It was an absolute necessity that money should be borrowed, because of the great demand—

Mr. Benson: I am sorry to interrupt the Financial Secretary, but he has missed my point. I know perfectly well that one could not borrow money at less than, say, 6 per cent. at that time, but I strongly protest against the fact that with the money so borrowed there was issued at that time 3 per cent. stock at a discount. In 1920 it was issued at 50 and in 1923 at 60.

Lieut.-Colonel Colville: The last public issue was in January, 1922, at 57, which fairly represented the conditions at that time.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: The point at issue is not the question of floating a loan at a rate of 3 per cent. or 6 per cent. The difference is over the question of issuing a loan at par on a 5 or 6 per cent. basis and issuing a loan on a 3 per cent. basis, which had to be issued at about 50 or 60. The result,


when the second course is adopted, is that there is an immense premium to be paid upon redemption, which would not have been the case had the loans been floated round about par at a rate of interest corresponding to the rate ruling at the time.

Lieut.-Colonel Colville: I do not think the hon. Member was in his place when the hon. Member for Chesterfield spoke, but I understood him to refer to borrowings over a long period up to 1932 and I pointed out that these borrowings were made during that earlier period and that the last public issue was, in fact, in January, 1922. I appreciate the point which the hon. Member makes, but I do not think that any of us could say at the present time that those who conducted those operations could have prophesied the future with that degree of certainty which hon. Members now seem to think they ought to have. The position of the fund, as I am advised, is not what the hon. Member would suggest.
Another point made in the Debate had relation to premiums on repayment. Both the hon. Member for Chesterfield and the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Morgan Jones) dealt with the question of the premium charged to local authorities. I speak particularly of cases where local authorities had lent the money again, it had been repaid to them, and they then had this money to dispose of and were asking that it should be taken back as quickly as possible. He mentioned the fact, which I had also intended to speak of, that there have been discussions between the Treasury and the Urban District Councils Association on this subject. Possibly the hon. Member saw in the August issue of "Local Government Finance," which is the official journal of the Institute of Municipal Treasurers and Accountants, a full account of those discussions. I will read an extract from it to show that an effort is being made to meet the local authorities on this matter. The article says in relation to loans from the Public Works Loans Commissioners:
The institute, acting in co-operation with the Urban District Councils Association, recently discussed with the Treasury the position of local authorities who have borrowed from the Public Works Loans Commissioners for the purpose of making advances for the purchase of houses under Sections 59 or 92 of the Housing Act, 1925, or other similar enactments. Some authorities have been obliged to accept premature repayment of

sums so advanced, but have been unable to repay these sums to the Commissioners without having also to pay the premium normally charged by the Commissioners in such circumstances. The association and the institute ask that the arrangement by which sums prematurely repaid to a local authority on account of advances under the Small Dwellings Acquisition Acts may be repaid by the authority to the Commissioners without premium should be extended to similar advances under the Housing Acts. The council are glad to report that the Treasury have agreed for the time being to forego 75 per cent. of the premium normally due on premature repayment of part of a loan from the Commissioners where the money has been borrowed for the purpose of making advances for house purchase under the Housing Act, 1925, or other similar enactments, and where the local authority has been obliged to accept premature repayment. Further, the Treasury have expressed their willingness to afford special treatment to cases where, in their opinion, the payment of even a quarter of the normal premium would involve real hardship to the authority. Where 25 per cent. of the normal premium exceeds the produce of a rate of one penny in the pound, consideration may be given to the further reduction of, or, in an exceptional case, to the complete waiver of the premium. The concession is, of course, conditional on the resources of the Local Loans Fund continuing to be sufficient to support it.
That deals with the point which the hon. Member raised, and, I think, shows that every effort is being made to meet that situation as it arises.

Mr. Benson: Will the hon. and gallant Member explain why private borrowers under the Agricultural Credits Act are given the full benefit in similar circumstances at the cost of the Treasury?

Lieut.-Colonel Colville: I cannot deal with all the questions raised to-day, but I think that is a question which has been discussed on previous occasions when similar Bills have been before us. The treatment of certain private borrowers, who are very often not in a position to make any satisfactory repayments, has been throughout rather different; and beyond that I cannot say anything except that every effort is made to secure fair treatment as between private borrowers and local authorities in this matter.

Mr. Benson: I am sorry to keep interrupting, but the hon. and gallant Member has not understood my point. He refers to private borrowers who cannot make any satisfactory repayments. If a private borrower pays the whole of his mortgage off in one lump sum, instead of paying it off over a period of years,


he ought, in equity, to pay a premium because of the drop in the interest rates. If, however, he is a borrower under the Agricultural Credits Act that premium is credited when he repays the sum to the Local Loans Fund, but instead of it coming out of his pocket, as a similar repayment would come out of the pocket of a local authority, the Treasury pays the premium which the operator should have paid because he has repaid the whole sum.

Lieut.-Colonel Colville: That is a point which I should like to have an opportunity of looking into.

Mr. Benson: It is in the latest Treasury Minute.

Lieut.-Colonel Colville: The position of private borrowers has frequently been discussed when we have had similar Bills to this before us. I did not at first appreciate the point which the hon. Member made, and was treating it as the case of those who could not repay at all. I should like to have notice of the point he has now made, because I took him up wrongly. The hon. Member for North Kensington (Mr. Duncan) was, I think, dealing with those who are borrowers under the Agricultural Credits Act, and whose debts are being written off. I would remind him that we are not remitting the sums completely, but are transferring the claim against the debtor from the Board to the Exchequer. As regards our policy towards these private persons, he asked that it should be borne in mind that, with the improvement in the agricultural situation, there was a possibility that some of them might, with a little careful handling, come into a position where they could repay the sums fully. That certainly will be fully borne in mind.
The hon. Member for Caerphilly raised a point of detail in the Financial Memorandum. It was rather a point of detail, but I quite appreciate that as Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee and with his interest in such matters, he is anxious to be assured that things are absolutely right. He referred to page 4 of the Financial Memorandum and asked why it was that under the heading of "Observations" the board were advised to accept an offer of £2,300, whereas the amount to be written off still stands as

£1,072. He asked why it was that, having accepted that money, there was so much to be written off. The point is explained by what follows under the same heading. After the figure "£2,300," we find:
plus tenant right amounting to £92 7s. and the property was accordingly disposed of. After paying all expenses there was a deficiency of £1,072 6s. 10d.
That was after paying all expenses and arrears of interest. What makes up the difference is the heavy arrears of interest which were paid. That kind of thing occurs in other and similar cases.

Mr. Morgan Jones: I may be very stupid, but I am afraid I must ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman for a further explanation. What is the meaning of the column "Amount repaid"? Does that mean that the borrowers concerned repaid in principal and interest £1,927 13s. 2d. out of the £3,000? After that was paid, you proceeded to sell the farm, and received £2,300 for it. After the payment of £1,927, only about £1,000 was left. If you received £2,300 for the farm, how can the sum be said to be written off?

Lieut.-Colonel Colville: The explanation given covers that question. The arrears of interest added to the paying of the expenses accounted for the deficiency. One other point raised by the hon. Member for Caerphilly and of greater importance, but which, I think he agrees, is rather outside the power of the Commissioners, was as to the position of local authorities who had been forced after the War to borrow on very unfavourable terms and for a long period, and as to the effect which the interest charges were having upon their finances, the rent of their houses and other things. I can only say that I have taken careful note of what he has said. It would require legislation to enable the Commissioners to deal with a question of that kind.
I have attempted to answer in brief all the questions which have been raised upon what, the House will agree, are very technical points. I should require notice to answer some of them more fully. I repeat that the substance of the Bill presents nothing unusual, because it deals in the ordinary way with the requirements of the Public Works Loans Board. I hope that the House will now be content to give the Bill a Second Reading.

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for Thursday.—[Sir H. Morris-Jones.]

PUBLIC WORKS LOANS [REMISSION OF DEBT].

Considered in Committee, under Standing Order No. 69.

[Captain BOURNE in the Chair.]

Resolved,
That, for the purpose of any Act of the present Session relating to local loans, it is expedient to authorise the remission of arrears of principal and interest due to the Public Works Loan Commissioners in respect of Eyemouth Harbour."—(King's Recommendation signified.)—[Lieut.-Colonel Colville.]

Resolution to be reported upon Thursday.

EMPIRE SETTLEMENT BILL.

Considered in Committee.

[Captain BOURNE in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 1.—(Amendment as to power of Secretary of State to co-operate in schemes.)

6.51 p.m.

Mr. Lunn: I beg to move, in page line 22, to leave out Sub-section (2).
It will be remembered that the Empire Settlement Act, 1922, laid down that in any scheme or schemes arranged between the United Kingdom Government or any voluntary society in the United Kingdom, and any Government or society overseas, the contribution should be on a fifty-fifty basis. Had the Bill continued that arrangement, I do not suppose there would have been much objection to it, but in the Subsection which I am moving to omit there is a departure from that arrangement in a manner which, up to now, I have not been able to understand or to get any explanation of it from the Secretary of State. The Sub-section lays it down that the arrangement shall continue except where it is a development of a land settlement scheme or a scheme between the Government of the United Kingdom and any Government overseas. I want

to know to what schemes that statement applies, and I want an assurance, which I have twice tried to get from the Secretary of State, as to what the schemes are to be. I am much concerned about a recommendation in the interdepartmental report, which is mentioned in the interim report of the present Oversea Settlement Board. They say that the contribution from the United Kingdom in any scheme should be an equitable share of the cost of the scheme. They then recommend that we should increase the contribution, in circumstances which they do not explain or state what they are likely to be, to up to 75 per cent. of the cost. On the other schemes of land settlement it shall be an equal share. I want an assurance from the right hon. Gentleman that that recommendation of the interdepartmental report shall not be implemented. That is the objection that I have to the Bill.
I have here a report of the delegation that went to Canada in 1924, and which dealt with a particular phase of migration that had existed for 60 or 70 years up to that time. It would be interesting to know the suffering and hardship of thousands of children in Canada during those years, under that scheme. When the delegation went out in 1924, they had no hesitation, as they say many times in the report, in recommending that the migration of children under school-leaving age should cease. The Canadian Government were so impressed with the facts of the situation that they agreed also. I do not object to child migration if the whole family migrates with the children. Family migration is perhaps the best form of migration. I am not raising the question of the average farm school; what I am raising is the possibility of the restarting of a scheme of sending out children who are used as little drudges in the home—the delegation proved that that is what it meant in many cases—who often receive no education and are used for purposes that none of us would desire for our own children. They sometimes received education in the winter, if possible, but none in the summer. I am strongly opposed to the restarting of any such scheme, because I fear the consequences. I cannot understand why the United Kingdom Government are prepared to agree to 75 per cent. unless it be for such a scheme.
Moreover, if a scheme of the kind is restarted, it will be by voluntary societies, and will involve all the evils of the past. In 1924, the arrangements were in the hands of voluntary societies who used to tout all over the country at the institutions of public authorities, in order to get hold of institutional children and send them overseas. They did that up to 1924 without regard, in many cases, to the children's welfare. No doubt, if the scheme restarts, the same kind of practice will be followed. The voluntary societies want to get money from the Government. I have been 13 years a member of the Oversea Settlement Committee, largely after this scheme ceased, and the evidence I have of the position which existed before is not from what I experienced on the committee, but is the result of meeting with other people and of reading what were the facts of the situation. I have no doubt that what I have said represents the facts.
Public assistance committees are more enlightened than they were a generation ago, I believe. They will not so easily give up little children for that purpose, because they have more regard for them as human beings. The children are equal to our own children, and ought to be considered from the same point of view. It is because I fear the consequences of this kind of scheme that I am moving the Amendment. If the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to give me an assurance that no scheme of the kind will be restarted, I shall have no objection to the Bill, but if I do not get that assurance there will be a Division on every occasion when I have the opportunity to vote against the Bill. I shall do so in the hope that some day my protest may have its effect. Moreover, I should like to get to Canada this view that I hold—and I say without question that every one of my colleagues holds—that Canada, which was ready to close the scheme down in 1924, will never agree to its restarting in the future.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. Tinker: I would like to put one or two points in speaking on this Amendment. Some of the schemes have been dealt with before. People have been sent overseas, and much dissatisfaction has arisen with the position in which they have been. We have had scores of

letters from people who have been stranded oversea and unable to get back. They have asked us what could be done.

The Deputy-Chairman: I think the hon. Member should raise that on the Question, "That Clause 1 stand part." The Amendment that we are now discussing is whether the Secretary of State shall or shall not under certain conditions be allowed to contribute three-quarters instead of one-half. The hon. Member is raising a wider question which would come better on the Clause.

7.1 p.m.

Sir Percy Harris: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will reply to the serious statements and allegations which have been made with regard to voluntary organisations. The suggestion has been made that in the past, when this machinery was in full operation, they went round the country touting for children to send to the Dominions without adequate provision being made for them on arrival. If there are facts supporting that allegation the Committee should have them. The statement of the hon. Member was that some of these societies went to the Poor Law guardians asking men if they had any surplus children, and then sending them to a new world, far from their own country, without any machinery for protecting them in their new homes. The society with which I and most of us are familiar is the Salvation Army. My knowledge of the Salvation Army, and of Commissioner Lamb, who was responsible for most of the work, is that it had machinery all over the world to protect the interests of migrants.
Every organisation has critics, but so far as my knowledge goes the Salvation Army is an organisation that deserves every sympathy and support from the State. The Committee is entitled to know who these societies are that have failed to do their duty, who is responsible, and how they came to get State assistance. Such serious allegations should be substantiated, but I suppose, knowing that my hon. Friend is an ex-Under-Secretary of State for the Dominions, that he had reason to make those statements. Before we decide whether to vote for or against this Amendment I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to meet these charges, and either refute them or persuade the hon. Gentleman to substantiate them.

7.5 P.m.

Mr. Kelly: I want to ask whether care is taken by the Department to ascertain what is done for the care of people who have settled in other countries. I have memories of the determined effort a few years ago to send many young boys to Australia. I never agreed with it. The answer we received on the last occasion, from a Government Committee, was that a boy who was placed 150 miles up country could, if anything was wrong, post a letter. It was stated that the letter would be posted in the presence of his employer, but that he could wait for the visit of the land inspector, or the inspector dealing with the rabbit pest or the inspector who had to deal with fences. No one should be sent and no contribution should be made to any organisation unless it has made provision for great care being taken regarding the conditions under which these people live and work. The people in that particular organisation were much surprised that in this country we were not prepared to let these youngsters go 9,000 miles without the slightest preparation being made for them.

7.8 p.m.

Mr. Annesley Somerville: I hope my right hon. Friend will explain more fully than he has done why he has tied himself to 50 per cent. for development in land settlement schemes. May I give him an instance of a settlement scheme which might be enlarged and which it is desirable that the Secretary of State should have power to assist? There is the MacDonell Settlement Scheme in Alberta, under which 200 families were settled 10 years ago. The settlement met with hard times, as every fanning settlement did in Canada, but 90 per cent. of the settlers came through. That was a great achievement. The families came from the Hebrides, Ulster and other parts of North Britain. The moving spirit in that scheme was Father MacDonell. There were Protestant families and Roman Catholic families among the settlers, but the settlement took place under the Scottish Migration Society. Father MacDonell is now over here hoping to make two further settlements. That kind of settlement has been tried and proved successful, and it is just the kind of settlement which the right hon. Gentleman should have full power to assist. It is a matter for great regret that he should tie his hands by limiting himself to 50 per cent. Again,

take a scheme such as a branch railway to one of the national railways in Canada, in which the capital of this country could be used and the Government might guarantee the full amount of interest on the capital employed. There might be a useful opportunity arising to develop a tract of country where migrants could settle. I would ask him to explain fully why he limits himself to 50 per cent. in cases where it is most desirable that he should have full power to act.

7.12 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs (Mr. Malcolm MacDonald): I would give two reasons why we confine ourselves to a 50 per cent. grant in land settlement schemes. In the first place, normally our partner in a land settlement scheme would be one of the Dominion Governments or a State or Provincial Government, and for reasons I have stated on more than one occasion we are abiding by the fifty-fifty principle in schemes in which Dominion Governments are our partners. We believe that the migration of people from this country to settle in the Dominions benefits both parties more or less equally, and that the principle of equal benefit should be maintained and should involve also the principle of a more or less equal burden and expenditure in promoting the scheme. Secondly, as a result of our experience in recent years we are dubious of the desirability of promoting any considerable land settlement scheme. One of the great features of these years of trade depression has been the low prices received by land settlers, and although we are glad to see that prices are rising, I believe that modern conditions, with machinery and modern methods of cultivation, mean that agriculture itself is not going to provide a livelihood for large numbers of additional people on the land in the Dominions. For these two reasons we have thought it wiser to make our proposals more moderate with regard to land settlement schemes than in some other cases.

Mr. A. Somerville: Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to give a liberal interpretation to the fifty-fifty basis? If the Dominion provides land would that be reckoned as part of their 50 per cent., and similarly social services, schools and so on?

Mr. MacDonald: That is a matter which would have to be settled on the merits of


each case. I do not rule out the possibility that the provision of free land would be counted as part of the Dominion Governments' contribution. I would, however, remind my hon. Friend that there are certain other costs in which this Government will be involved, and which might also be taken into account in these circumstances. This Government will have provided free education for migrants; this Government will have provided all sorts of other social services for them before they left this country; and I think the fact that, partly as a result of those services provided by this Government, the Dominions were receiving physically and mentally fit new citizens, should be taken into account in trying to get a balance on a fifty-fifty basis.
With regard to the case made by the Mover of the Amendment, he has again made it quite clear that he objects very strongly and sincerely to a certain type of migration; but for the possibility that we might use our powers under this Clause to encourage that type of migration, he frankly confesses that he would not have moved this Amendment. The type of migration to which he and his party object is, not the migration of children in any circumstances but the migration of children under a system which means that they are boarded out in families in the Dominions. He has pointed out that in the past this boarding-out system was condemned by a Commission which travelled in Canada, and that it has resulted in many unsatisfactory cases in which children were treated as drudges in families. I would not contest that at all; I agree with the hon. Gentleman that in the past that system did result in some cases in which children led a rather unhappy life in the homes where they were boarded out; and that experience would naturally make the Government think very carefully before deciding to approve in principle of the recommencement of any such scheme.
There are very weighty arguments against the Government deciding to participate in any such scheme again, and they may very well come to the conclusion that they will not participate in such a scheme, but I cannot give the hon. Gentlemen an absolute assurance to-day. The matter, as I have said, has not arisen. I can, however, give the hon. Gentleman this assurance, that, if the Government

were to wish to participate in a scheme for boarding out children, they would only do so with the complete safeguards that were laid down in the Departmental Committee's report, and any other safeguards which the Government thought were necessary. For instance, in the old days, before 1924, when this system was in operation, it is undoubtedly true that some voluntary societies who helped children to go out under this scheme, and who did so from the very best motives, really thinking that they were giving the children a chance of a better life in a new country, had not adequate administrative machinery in the Dominions to look after the children. They had not a proper staff of inspectors to make what are sometimes very long journeys to visit the children and inquire into their condition periodically. We should never contemplate playing any part in the re-starting of this scheme unless our partner in it were a society or societies who had an adequate inspecting staff, so that we had a complete assurance that the child's life in the home would be watched over carefully by some guardian appointed by the society.
There was another flaw in the old system. It was customary that boarding-out fees should be paid by the societies for these children to the families in which they lived, but in many cases, if not in all, the boarding-out fee ceased to be paid when the child reached the age of 12, and, if the child did not start to earn a wage before the age of 14, there was a period when the family received no contribution at all towards keeping the child; and it was very often during those two years, when the family did not feel under any obligation to treat the child as an equal member of the family, that the child found all sorts of little duties being heaped upon it. The Departmental Committee recommended, and I would certainly subscribe to the recommendation, that the boarding-out fees should continue to be paid up to at any rate the age of 14, and there are various safeguards such as that which we should want to have as a part of the scheme before we contemplated participating in the renewal of that kind of migration at all.
As I have said, it might be that we would not, even if we were assured of safeguards, contemplate that type of migration at all. For instance, in 1924


and before 1924 there was no Fairbridge Farm School scheme in Canada, and therefore there was not that alternative method of child migration. Now there is a Fairbridge Farm School scheme established in Canada, on Vancouver Island, and it would seem to me that because of that the possibility of the Government wishing to encourage this other type of child migration has been very considerably lessened. All I can say is that the Government are fully aware of the objections which the hon. Gentleman has raised in regard to this system of migration, and we shall keep them fully in mind. We are just as anxious as he is that some of those bad cases of the past should be quite impossible in the future. But beyond that I really cannot go; I cannot give an absolute assurance that in no circumstances will we again encourage a society to send a child into a family in Canada, Australia or some other Dominion.
I would point out that, even if the Amendment were carried, it would not really afford an assurance that that type of migration will not start again, and that the Government will not participate in it. All that it would secure is that we could not pay a 75 per cent. grant, but only a 50 per cent. grant. If the Amendment were carried, there would still be nothing to prevent the Government from giving a 50 per cent. grant towards a society which was boarding out children in one of the Dominions. Therefore, the Amendment would not have the effect of destroying the possibility of the Government helping such a scheme; it would only have the effect of crippling the Government's ability to take part in such a scheme. My difficulty about the Amendment is that it would not only cripple our ability to help that scheme, which, as I have said, we may never take up, but it would also cripple our ability to take part in any of the other schemes with which, I understand, the hon. Gentleman finds himself in hearty agreement. He talks about the migration of families as the best form of migration. Many voluntary societies have helped families to go and settle in the Dominions. But the Amendment, if carried, would cripple the Government's ability to help voluntary societies to promote these other forms of very desirable migration.
The voluntary societies do a very great deal. Sometimes they train migrants in this country before they go out; sometimes they provide them with assistance on their passage to the Dominions; and in many cases they give them a proper reception. By that I do not mean just the Lord Mayor coming down with his chain, and then disappearing when the migrant has to go and settle and do the job. These societies often provide a really helpful reception for the migrant arriving in a Dominion, and, most important, of course, of all, these societies, in the case of thousands of migrants, have provided after-care for months and years after the settlers have got on to their farms or into their jobs in the towns or cities. For instance, although, as the hon. Gentleman has pointed out over and over again, migration has practically ceased during the last few years, this work of after-care has gone on steadily. Take the case of a voluntary society like the Big Brother movement. The Big Brother movement was responsible for enabling large numbers of youngish boys to go out and settle in Australia, and those boys have been looked after right through the years of the depression up to the time when they reached the age of 21, by this Big Brother movement. That is only one example of the way in which the voluntary societies do not desert the migrants immediately on their arrival, and return to start looking round for new victims here; they go on looking after them for years after they have actually landed in the country.
Another reason why I hope the Amendment will be rejected and the Clause passed as it stands is that the voluntary societies have been finding it more and more difficult, as the years have gone on, to raise from private sources the large sums of money which are necessary if this very beneficial work is to be carried on. All sorts of societies, like hospitals and other voluntary organisations, are finding it more and more difficult to raise money with which to do their work. The voluntary societies concerned with migration are no exception, and it is to enable them to carry on with adequate funds that the Government are anxious to have power to raise their percentage grant to these societies from 50 to 75 per cent. For the reasons I have given, I hope the Amendment will not commend itself to the Committee, and that we shall get this


additional power to help voluntary societies in the very useful work which they do for thousands of migrants going from this country to the Dominions.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 212; Noes, 98.

Division Mo. 62.]
AYES.
[7.28 p m.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir F. Dyke
Furness, S. N.
Owen, Major G.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Fyfe, D. P. M.
Palmer, G. E. H.


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Ganzoni, Sir J.
Peake, O.


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir J.
Penny, Sir G.


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'kn'hd)
Gluckstein, L. H.
Percy, Rt. Hon. Lord E.


Amery, Rt. Hon. L. C. M. S.
Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)
Peters, Dr. S. J.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Petherick, M.


Aske, Sir R. W.
Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Atholl, Duchess of
Grimston, R. V.
Pilkington, R.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Porritt, R. W.


Balfour, G. (Hampstead)
Guy, J. C. M.
Pownall, Lt.-Col. Sir Assheton


Barclay-Harvey, Sir C. M.
Hanbury, Sir C.
Radford, E. A.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Hannah, I. C.
Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Hannon, Sir P. J. H.
Ramsbotham, H.


Birchall, Sir J. D.
Harbord, A.
Ramsden, Sir E.


Blaker, Sir R.
Harris, Sir P. A.
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)


Blindell, Sir J.
Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)


Bossom, A. C.
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A
Reid, Sir D. D. (Down)


Bower, Comdr. R. T.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)


Bowyer, Capt. Sir G. E. W.
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-
Remer, J. R.


Brass, Sir W.
Herbert, A. P. (Oxford U.)
Ropner, Colonel L.


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Herbert, Capt. Sir S. (Abbey)
Rowlands, G.


Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham)
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. J. W. (Ripon}
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.


Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)
Holmes, J. S.
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)


Brown, Brig.-Gen, H. C. (Newbury)
Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.
Salmon, Sir I.


Bull, B. B.
Hore-Belisha, Rt. Hon. L.
Salt, E. W.


Burgin, Dr. E. L.
Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir R. S.
Samuel, M. R. A. (Putney)


Butler, R. A.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Scott, Lord William


Cartland, J. R. H.
Hudson, R. S. (Southport)
Seely, Sir H. M


Carver, Major W. H.
Hume, Sir G. H.
Selley, H. R.


Castlereagh, Viscount
Hunter, T.
Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)


Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Hurd, Sir P. A.
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)


Channon, H.
Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)
Shepperson, Sir E. W.


Chapman, Sir S. (Edinburgh, S.)
Jones, L. (Swansea W.)
Simmonds, O. E.


Clarke, Lt.-Col. R. S. (E. Grinstead)
Keeling, E. H.
Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)


Colfox, Major W. P.
Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)
Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W D.


Colville, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. D. J.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Smith, Sir R W. (Aberdeen)


Cook, Sir T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.)
Law, R. K. (Hull, S.W.)
Somervell. Sir D. B. (Crewe)


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Leckie, J. A.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Lees-Jones, J.
Spears, Brigadier-General E. L.


Courthope, Col. Sir G. L.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Spens. W. P.


Crooke, J. S.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'd)


Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.
Little, Sir E. Graham-
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Lloyd, G. W.
Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.


Crowder, J. F. E.
Loftus, P. C.
Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)


Culverwell, C. T.
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)
Lumley, Capt. L. R.
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Dawson, Sir P.
MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


De Chair, S. S.
M'Connell, Sir J.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)
Sutcliffe, H.


Denville, Alfred
McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.
Train, Sir J.


Doland, G. F.
McKie, J. H.
Tree, A. R. L. F.


Dorman-Smith, Major R. H.
Macquisten, F. A.
Turton, R. H.


Drewe, C.
Magnay, T.
Walker-Smith, Sir J.


Duckworth, G. A. V. (Salop)
Manningham-Buller, Sir M.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Duncan, J. A. L.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)


Dunglass, Lord
Markham, S. F.
Warrender, Sir V.


Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Wells, S. R.


Ellis, Sir G.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Williams,.H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Elliston, Capt. G. S.
Moreing, A. C.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.


Elmley, Viscount
Morris, O. T. (Cardiff, E.)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Emmott, C. E. G. C.
Morris-Jones, Sir Henry
Withers, Sir J. J.


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Entwistle, Sir C. F.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
Wragg, H.


Erskine-Hill, A. G.
Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.
Wright, Squadron-Leader J. A. C.


Evans, Capt. A. (Cardiff, S.)
Munro, P.
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES—


Fildes, Sir H.
O'Connor, Sir Terence J.
Lieut.-Colonel Llewellin and Mr. Cross.


Findlay, Sir E.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. G. A.



Fremantle, Sir F. E.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.





NOES.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Quibell, D. J. K.


Adamson, W. M.
Hopkin, D.
Richards, R. (Wrexham)


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
John, W.
Ridley, G.


Ammon, C. G.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Riley, B.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Ritson, J.


Barnes, A. J.
Kelly, W. T.
Rowson, G.


Barr, J,
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Sanders, W. S.


Bellenger, F. J.
Lathan, G.
Sexton. T. M.


Benson, G.
Leach, W.
Shinwell, E.


Bevan, A.
Lee, F.
Short, A.


Broad, F. A.
Leonard, W.
Silkin, L.


Brooke, W.
Leslie, J. R.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire)
Logan, D. G.
Sorensen, R. W.


Burke, W. A.
Lunn, W.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Cape, T.
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Cluse, W. S.
McGhee, H. G.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.
MacLaren, A.
Thorne, W.


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Maclean, N.
Thurtle, E.


Dobbie, W.
Mainwaring, W. H.
Tinker, J. J.


Ede, J. C.
Marshall, F.
Viant, S. P.


Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)
Mathers, G.
Walkden, A. G.


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Maxton, J.
Walker, J.


Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
Messer, F.
Watkins, F. C.


Gardner, B. W.
Milner, Major J.
Watson, W. McL.


Gibbins, J.
Montague, F.
Welsh, J. C.


Gibson, R. (Greenock)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)


Creenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Oliver, G. H.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Grenfell, D. R.
Parker, J.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Parkinson, J. A.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.



Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Potts, J.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES —


Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Price, M. P.
Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Muff.


Hicks, E. G.
Pritt, D. N.



Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

7.38 p.m.

Mr. Tinker: I should like to have an explanation on some points in connection with this Clause. What is the position of migrants under this scheme who, after a lapse of time, find that something happens as a result of which they are dissatisfied with the homes which they have made out there, or it may be that through circumstances over which they have no control failure comes along? Is there anything in the scheme to assist them to get back? Some time ago hon. Members on this side and probably on the other side also were getting letters from people in Canada and Australia who had gone out under some assisted scheme; depression had set in, failure had come, and they had been stranded out there, unable to get back. Requests were made to us to get the Government to give something to assist them back, but we were met with the question as to how far it was to extend. People have been going out overseas for many years now, and the Government wanted to know whether the whole period of migration was to be covered for many years past. I could see the force of the argument that it would be difficult to lay down a definite line, but now that we are

dealing with this question, I would like to know what the position is now.
One remark that the right hon. Gentleman made rather bore on this point. He said on the last Amendment that for the last few years migration from this country had practically ceased. Hon. Members will see the implication. Migration had probably ceased because the people who might have desired to go overseas had had in mind the thought that, once they left these shores, if they failed, there was no hope of getting back here. That would naturally have a great effect on the mind of anyone desirous of going overseas; knowing the failures that have taken place and the hardships that have been endured in trying to get back, they might be deterred from going out unless they had some assurance that they would be able to get back again if they failed. I do not want men to be assisted back in all cases. If a man deliberately will not try, I do not say that he ought to be brought back simply because he is a bit tired of the new conditions, but I do want genuine cases of hardship, arising through no fault of the man or the boy himself, to be considered and, if possible, assisted. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman can clear up that point, but it would be, as well to let people know


exactly what the position is, so that they will know what they are taking on.

7.41 p.m.

Mr. A. Somerville: During the Second Reading of the Bill, great regret was expressed on all hands that the Secretary of State had found it necessary to propose a reduction of the maximum expenditure from 3,000,000 a year to 1,500,000. It was regretted very largely because of its adverse effect on migration to the Dominions, but we were to some extent reassured by the Secretary of State when he said that if it were necessary, he would come to Parliament for powers to increase that expenditure. I hope, for the sake of the effect that such statements have upon the Dominions, that the right hon. Gentleman will find it possible to repeat that assurance this evening.

7.42 p.m.

Mr. M. MacDonald: I think that probably all of us who are interested in this subject have received letters from migrants in some one or other of the Dominions who have had a very severe experience during these years of depression and who have been anxious to return home, and the letters have always asked whether there was any fund from which they could get assistance towards their passage home. I agree with the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) that there are some very hard cases in which one would be very tempted to give that assistance home, especially cases where some member of a family, perhaps a comparatively young member of a family, has gone out and become separated from his relatives and friends over here. On the other hand, as the hon. Member himself appreciated, it has been quite impossible to contemplate any general scheme of return passages, otherwise you would merely be encouraging people in some cases to go out for the trip and not to make a really determined effort at settlement in a new country, and as soon as a difficulty appeared above the horizon, the migrant or traveller would ask for his return passage and come back. It is therefore quite clear that this is a matter which has to be considered very, very carefully, so as to prevent anything which might be a real abuse and a wrong expenditure of considerable sums of money provided by the taxpayers of this country. It is because of that latter

consideration that in the past the Government have not agreed to any return-passage scheme at all, and at the present time I have no funds at my disposal, and I do not know of any funds which are at the disposal of any particular voluntary society, which would enable return passages to be paid.
On the other hand, there have been cases where assistance towards passages home has been found. In some cases Governments overseas, Dominion Governments or, I think, State Governments, have contributed towards return passages, in particularly hard cases. In other cases migrants who were in the position which the hon. Member described have been able to get assistance from some organisation on which they had claims or with which they were associated. I am not sure whether they were ex-service men's associations in some cases, but there have been quite a number of cases where migrants have had assistance towards their passage back to this country from a society or association of that nature. So far the Secretary of State has had no funds at all from which he could get money for that purpose. I have been very impressed with the arguments in favour of such a fund being created, but I think one would have to be very careful to safeguard it against the kind of extension to which the hon. Gentleman has referred. I believe there is a strong case to be made out for such a fund, but there is also a strong case against it, and all I can say at present is that the whole matter is being inquired into. It is not a case of an inquiry as the result of the hon. Gentleman's remarks to-day. I had started an inquiry into the possibility some time ago. When it has been concluded I shall be able to consider the results of it and, if it proves that there is a balance of advantage in favour of such a fund being created, I shall consider going to my colleagues and seeing whether we can agree on that policy. We have the matter in mind, and it is possible that the point will be met, to some extent at any rate.
With regard to the point raised by the hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. A. Somerville), I have, of course, no hesitation in repeating what I said in a previous Debate. We have reduced the provision at the disposal of the Government in any 12 months from £3,000,000 to £1,500,000 a year, because we believe that that con-


forms to realities. On the other hand, if conditions became such that we wanted to participate in any large scheme of settlement which would require more funds than that, we should be ready to come to the House at the earliest convenient opportunity to get an amending Bill enabling the Government to go beyond that amount. That is the policy of the Government, and I can assure the House that I make that announcement with every intention of its being carried out if circumstances should permit.

7.48 p.m.

Mr. Lunn: I am very pleased to hear the right hon. Gentleman say that the Government are considering the possibility of providing return passages for migrants who go overseas. I should like to know whether it has been or will be referred to the Oversea Settlement Board for consideration, not that I expect—I have considered the question many times —that it may provide for everyone who goes overseas, but even if the position can be met that in certain hard cases it may be provided, it will be to the advantage of those people and I think it will be welcomed. The position to-day is difficult. We know that since 1931 scores of thousands more have come back than have gone from this country, and many thousands have been deported from Canada, which is the only country within the Empire which has a Deportation Act. They are most unfortunate cases, because they have had to become practically regarded as criminals in order to be deported. I think the most important thing is to see conditions improved in the Dominions and to know that they are such as to tempt people to go. I am not prepared to encourage a single person to go unless conditions are such as to guarantee a livelihood. If conditions improve so as to provide work and wages for migrants, it will be an advantage not only to our own country, but to the Dominions overseas. At the same time I hope that we shall keep in mind the point that has been raised and that we shall hear something about it in the near future.

7.51 p.m.

Earl Winterton: I see nothing to object to in the hon. Gentleman's speech. I think I am perhaps nearer to him than to some of my hon. Friends. I cannot think it is the slightest good for people

to go to any of the Dominions unless conditions are better than at present for the ordinary man, apart from land settlement. That is quite a different thing. There is one thing that I should like to mention, though it would not be in order to go into it in extensor. When Canada is again ready to take immigrants in any large number the first place that she ought to get them from is not this country, but Newfoundland.

The Deputy-Chairman: It is not in Order on this Clause to refer to other parts of the Empire.

Earl Winterton: I was about to explain that. I am aware that the Bill has nothing to do with Newfoundland, but you now compel me, Sir, to relate my argument to the Bill. While we must not refer to this forbidden subject we have to bear in mind that there are other parts of the Empire where the question of migration will have to be considered.

The Deputy-Chairman: This is not a Second Reading Debate. We are now dealing with a specific Clause in the Bill.

Earl Winterton: I fully accept your Ruling, Sir. It reminds me of the old days when we had a very rigid interpretation of the Rules. I have not risen for the purpose of indulging in a discussion with the Chair, as I did 20 years ago, sometimes with some success. I merely intended to correct one statement of the hon. Gentleman opposite. He said Canada was the only Dominion which had the power to deport British migrants. I think it is rather important, because this Debate will be read by, at any rate, a portion of the people in the Dominions who are interested. The system is in practice in all the British Crown Colonies, and it is only fair to Canada that that should be made clear. It is not right that it should go out that Canada is the only country.
I think there is something to be said for paying passages back in specific hard cases, and I am glad the right hon. Gentleman is considering the matter. Some hundred years ago there was a series of Debates on this very subject, when the then Government gave assisted passages to Australia. Even so long ago as that the Government had some scheme, in exceptional circumstances of hardship, for getting the people back to this coun-


try. That may be helpful to the committee of investigation which will consider the point. While I think that in exceptional cases these people's fares ought to be paid, I suppose there will be agreement on both sides of the Committee that it would be unfortunate if the idea went out that anyone could go to the Dominions with the certainty of having his fare paid back. It is really rather a cynical reflection on the way the Empire has been built up that we are to-day discussing exactly the same difficulties as our predecessors discussed a hundred years ago. In those days Members who were keen about migration used to point to the possibility of Australia having a population similar to that which then existed in the United States—some 20,000,000 or 30,000,000. One suggested that it might have a population of 50,000,00. The population is 7,000,000, and we are still discussing the difficulties of migration, as our predecessors did a hundred years ago.

Clause 2 (Short title, interpretation and construction) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported, without Amendment; to be read the Third time upon Thursday.

CHAIRMEN OF TRAFFIC COMMISSIONERS, ETC. (TENURE OF OFFICE) [MONEY].

Considered in Committee.

[Captain BOURNE in the Chair.]

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That it is expedient that persons holding any of the offices to which this Resolution applies should, in lieu of holding office for a term of years, hold office during His Majesty's pleasure or during good behaviour, subject to any provision which may be made by any Act of the present Session for giving effect to this Resolution as to age of retirement or as to removal for misbehaviour or inability and to any provisions for vacation of or removal from office before the expiration of the term thereof to which such persons are now subject, and accordingly that the Superannuation Acts, 1834 to 1935, should apply to such persons with such modifications as may be specified in any such Act as aforesaid, and that any expenses arising from the application of the Superannuation Acts to the President of the Railway Rates Tribunal should be defrayed as expenses of that Tribunal.

The offices to which this Resolution applies are those of—

(i) Chairman of Traffic Commissioners under the Road Traffic Act, 1930;
(ii) Traffic Commissioner under that Act for the Metropolitan traffic area;
(iii) Chairman of the Appeal Tribunal established by Section fifteen of the Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933; and
(iv) President of the Railway Rates Tribunal."—(King's Recommendation signified)—[Lieut.-Colonel Colville.]

7.59 P.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport? (Captain Austin Hudson): The object of this Resolution, on which a Bill will be founded, is to place on a permanent footing the appointment of certain officers who discharge important duties of a judicial or quasi-judicial character. The first category of these appointments is the Chairmen of Traffic Commissioners and the Metropolitan Traffic Commissioner. These gentlemen operate under two Acts of Parliament, under the Road Traffic Act, 1930, for road passenger services, when they sit with two unpaid commissioners, except the Metropolitan Traffic Commissioner, who sits alone. They also operate under the Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933, for goods vehicles, in which case they sit alone. There are 12 of these Traffic Commissioners, and they are now appointed by the Minister of Transport for a term not exceeding seven years, but may be re-appointed. The new proposals are to put their employment on the normal terms of established civil servants, pensions to be granted under the Superannuation Acts, 1834 to 1935. The difference between these people and the civil servants is that the retiring age will be 65, with a possible extension to 70, whereas the normal Civil Service practice is 60, with a possible extension to 65.
The reason why we are asking for this extension is that it is very important that the persons who are appointed to these posts should be people of standing and of experience. In that respect most of the appointments were made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Hackney (Mr. H. Morrison) when he was Minister of Transport, and he took great trouble at that time, as one can see from reading the Debates, to make the right appointments for these very onerous posts. I think that on all sides of the


House we agree that he was successful in the men whom he got to take these jobs. There are certain reductions which are now made in the pensions of civil servants who are retained in special circumstances beyond 65. Certain civil servants can be retained beyond 65 with Treasury sanction. In the present case, as it is proposed that the age shall be 65 to 70 instead of 60 to 65, it is also proposed that these reductions should be waived. Ten years is the minimum service required for pension, and there a re five out of 12 of these Chairmen who will be eligible. None of these gentlemen who are eligible is in receipt of a pension from public funds. I see that an Amendment on this point has been put down which no doubt we shall discuss in detail later on.
The second category of these appointments is the Chairman of the Appeal Tribunal who operates under Section 15 of the Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933, sitting with two part-time members. He is now appointed for such term, not being less than three years, as may be determined by the Minister. The proposal under the Financial Resolution and under the Bill is the same as that for the Traffic Commissioners that he should serve under the Civil Service arrangements and the present holder of this office would be eligible for a pension. The last of the appointments is that of the President of the Railway Rates Tribunal, which was established under the Railways Act, 1921, and is a court of record. This appointment has really no connection with the other appointments of Traffic Commissioners, but it is for convenience that this appointment is included in the Financial Resolution, and in the Bill which is to follow later. This gentleman is appointed by His Majesty on the joint recommendation of the Lord Chancellor, the President of the Board of Trade, and the Minister of Transport, for a period not exceeding seven years, being eligible for reappointment.
In his case the new proposal is to place the office on the same footing as that of Masters and other superior quasi-judicial officers of the Supreme Court, the procedure and scale of pension being that laid down under the Supreme Court of Judicature Act, 1925. Under that Act the retiring age is 72, with extension to the present holder of the office is to

have the choice of accepting establishment, and, if he does so, he will undergo a reduction of salary, receiving a pension later on. I would remind the Committee that the expense of this appointment is borne by the railway companies themselves. These posts might have been considered up to now to have been experimental. We consider now that they have proved their worth, and I hope the Committee will agree to these adjustments in the status of their offices.

8.8 p.m.

Mr. Ellis Smith: I beg to move, in line 10, after "aforesaid," to insert:
and, in particular, with the modifications that wherever any such persons by reason of such Act and of the Superannuation Acts, 1834 to 1935, become entitled to a pension in respect of their tenure of any of the said offices, and shall also at the same time be entitled to any pension or pensions in respect of their tenure of any other office under the Crown, they shall not receive in respect of any period more in all by way of such pensions than a sum equal to the amount falling to be paid in respect of such period of that one of the said pensions which shall be selected by such person.
I and my hon. Friends have put down the Amendment for several reasons. The first is, that we desire to bring to the notice of the Government and the country the differentiation in treatment of people who are well placed in life, compared with the treatment of ordinary people who are employed in industry. Those who are employed in manufacturing wealth in this country receive the worst treatment at the hands of this House, and when it comes to a question of pension and other conditions we find that their conditions are becoming relatively worse compared with people in other walks of life. Without attempting to develop that aspect too much, we shall, on every occasion possible, draw the attention of the House to the differentiation in treatment.
I want to deal with the Traffic Commissioners themselves. The Parliamentary Secretary, when he was introducing the Resolution, said that they had been successful in the choice of men for these jobs. Who are in these jobs? Let us examine one or two of these Commissioners; let us look at the personnel occupying these positions. In the Northern Traffic Area, for example, the chairman for whom we are legislating this evening was a chief constable for 28 years. He has a salary at present of


£1,000 per annum, and he is entitled to a pension of £666. In the Yorkshire traffic area the chairman is an ex-chief constable, with a pension already of £600 a year and a salary of £1,250. The chairman in the North Western area was a general manager and an engineer of several important companies for a considerable time. Although I have not been able to ascertain what pension is due to him, in all probability he also will be eligible for pension arising out of his previous occupation.
The Chairman in the West-Midland Traffic area is an ex-colonel. He also is in receipt of a pension at the present time of £395 per annum. In the Western area we have another ex-Chief Constable, who is in receipt of a pension at the present time of £466 a year. In the East-Midland Traffic area there is a retired transport manager of the Birmingham Cooperative Society, and I have sufficient knowledge of the co-operative movement to say without any hesitation that he also will be eligible for a pension since retiring from that position. In the South Wales area there is a retired solicitor and barrister. These people are well paid in their profession during the time that they carry on their profession. There is no dilution in the legal profession, and no danger of being out of employment, and these are the kind of men that are being put into these positions. In the Southern area there is an ex-major-general, who is already receiving a pension of £683 per annum. In the Metropolitan area there is an ex-civil servant who, I am informed on good authority, is already eligible for a fairly substantial pension. In the South Scottish area there is a former Colonial civil servant who is receiving a salary at the present time of £1,000 a year, and on top of that a pension of £750 per annum.
One could give several other instances of how these people are drawing huge pensions on the grounds that I have mentioned, and also relatively high salaries in addition. I want to draw the attention of the House to the fact that these men who have already done well in life, every one of them, are keeping younger men out of positions of this kind. They have all had good salaries during the whole of their lives. They and those dependant upon them are already well provided for, and now the Government are proposing

to make them entitled to another pension. Most of them are on short time. It states in the Money Resolution that this is a full-time job, but, having some knowledge of the hours that these people put in, I have no hesitation in saying that it is not a full-time job, and that, relatively speaking, these men are on short time, for which they are already being well provided.
These men in the positions that they are occupying will receive in one year's salary alone as much as a miner working on piece work in this country can earn in seven years. A miner is lucky if he lives sufficiently long to draw a pension of 10s. at the age of 65. These traffic commissioners already receive pensions of between £6 and &4 a week, and it is proposed to give some of them another pension. For these reasons we propose to divide on this issue, first on the ground that we desire to make a protest against the Government's failure to deal with anomalies as they exist in regard to pensions as they affect poor people, and, secondly, we seek to draw attention to the issues involved in this Money Resolution.

8.16 p.m.

Mr. Batey: I beg to support the Amendment. This is one of the most important questions that this House can consider, and I am sorry that there is not a larger attendance, because it raises an important principle. I have no objection to the Traffic Commissioners as men. We agree that they are doing the work as well as anybody could expect. We raise no objection to the Government making the appointments permanent. It is far more satisfactory to make the appointment permanent than for a few years, but we raise objections to these Traffic Commissioners being paid increased pensions. The Parliamentary Secretary slid over the ice very nicely when he said that some of these Traffic Commissioners are not at the present time receiving pensions from public funds. That may be so, but they are receiving pensions from other funds. I should have liked the Parliamentary Secretary to tell the Committee what amount of pension they are receiving and how much their pensions are likely to be increased if this Bill becomes law. I have received my information on the subject


from the Mover of the Amendment. He has told us that they are receiving pensions ranging from £395 to £750.
What we aim at is very simple. We say that the Traffic Commissioners should not receive double pension at the end of their term as Traffic Commissioners, but that they should receive whichever is the higher pension. They should not be allowed to draw two pensions. We object to anyone drawing huge pensions from public funds without any means test. Because certain people are drawing money from public funds we are always told that there must be a means test. If there is a means test for the unemployed, there ought to be a means test for these men. So long as hon. Members opposite say that because poor men are drawing money from public funds they shall be subject to a means test, we say that that principle must apply all round, and if it is not applied we shall continue to object. A speech was delivered recently by the Prime Minister in which he said that where it was a question of public money there could be no argument against the means test. Public money is involved in this Bill. We are told in the White Paper that the passing of the Bill will amount to £3,000 a year extra. That is public money. We should object on principle if it was £300 or £3.
The other side of the House cannot justify their action in filling the pockets of these gentlemen with so much public money when they refuse to give money to other people. There are people in this country who have a prior claim to increased pensions before these gentlemen. I know many men who have worked hard all their lives and served their country well who have to exist on 1os. a week. If public money is to be given away these old age pensioners are entitled to have their pensions increased before the House thinks about adding so huge a sum to the pensions which these people are already receiving. We make no apology for raising this question. We shall raise it whenever we have the opportunity. The House ought to be fair. If they have public money to give away, let them give it to those who deserve it, and stop feeding the fat sow, which this Government are always doing, giving to those who have got and stealing the last sixpence from some of the working class, in order to add to the bank

ing account of certain people. We shall force this issue to a division. I hope that hon. Members will record their votes as a protest against these gentlemen who are already in receipt of large pensions being supplied with another huge pension, until justice is done to the working classes.

8.24 p.m.

Sir Joseph Lamb: I should like to ask a question of the Parliamentary Secretary. In introducing the Vote he stated that there were only five of the commissioners who will be entitled to draw a pension. I should like to know whether those five are included in those enumerated by the hon. Member opposite. There will undoubtedly be a great deal of sympathy with hon. Members opposite on the part of the public if those who were referred to by the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. E. Smith) are going to receive these additional pensions. It will be felt that there is great inequality between the treatment meted out to various individuals, and there will always be justifiable opposition against unequal treatment. I think the hon. Member was quite right in drawing a comparison with the treatment of those in manual occupations. Those who are employed in the primary products of this country have always been worse treated than any other section, and there will no doubt be a great deal of feeling in the country if these large pensions are given to certain classes of individuals who are already in a much better position than people in other circumstances. I do not object to the Measure except that I think the Government should make it possible for those who are in worse circumstances to receive better conditions, and that we should be careful how we proceed to give additional pensions to those who are already drawing pensions. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will explain whether the people who were enumerated by the hon. Member are going to be included amongst those who are going to receive these extra pensions.

8.27 p.m.

Mr. Maxton: I had not intended to take any action on this Resolution until I had seen the Bill to which the Resolution gives effect, but I congratulate hon. Members on having taken this opportunity, because by the time we get the Bill the Government may bring before us more defensible arguments in support


of it. I did not notice, when the Parliamentary Secretary opened his remarks, that he made any apology for the absence of his right hon. Friend.

Viscount Elmley: He is here now.

Mr. Maxton: I should have thought it was a Measure for which the right hon. Gentleman would have taken the responsibility, and I am wondering whether he has the same measure of enthusiasm for it as the Parliamentary Secretary undoubtedly displayed in his presentation of it to the House. This is not exactly a minor Measure. There is a proposal to make these appointments, which were originally to be temporary, into permanencies; to make them pensionable appointments; in other words, to make these men civil servants in the ordinary sense of the term. That was not the intention of Parliament when the Act was passed. The assumption was that these men were going to be in a different position, that they were going to sit in a quasi-judicial position, that they were going to be arbiters in cases in which there might be two or three parties, in which the Minister of Transport himself might be one of the parties. Now we are told that they are to become merely employes of the Ministry of Transport. That is a big departure from the original intentions of this House, and I shall want to see the Bill before I consent even to a limited agreement to that aspect of it, without referring to the pension aspect of it at all.
I know that in every locality there is a stronger feeling of resentment about these jobs than about any other single thing. The amount of resentment there is about retired chief constables, retired inspectors of police, and retired sergeants taking on all sorts of jobs after they are regarded as done for the job for which they were trained, is amazing, and I should imagine that the general body of civil servants, without talking about the unemployed man on the means test who has a right to feel sore, have surely got some right to feel resentful when men at 60 years of age or older can come into the public service.

The Chairman (Sir Dennis Herbert): I must remind the hon. Member that we are now on the Amendment to the Resolution which deals with pensions.

Mr. Maxton: I have already been accused to-day of not reading the literature appropriate to the Measure under discussion. I sometimes think that speeches would be considerably improved if that practice was followed more frequently. Let me read the Amendment. I can see your point, Sir Dennis, and I will accept your Ruling. The point I was making is that these men can come into the public service when they are already drawing pensions out of the public purse. They will have an effective life of possibly only five years, perhaps less. and from the explanation given by the Parliamentary Secretary we understand that they are to become entitled to a further pension.

Captain Hudson: I said that there must be a minimum service of 10 years.

Mr. Maxton: Am I to understand that those who reach the age limit and have not served 10 years will be without pensions?

Mr. A. Bevan: I understand that it is optional for them to join the pension scheme. If they reach the maximum age before serving 10 years, they obviously will contract out of the pension scheme.

Mr. Maxton: In any case, they will all have a good chance of doing their 10 years' minimum service, because they are to be allowed, as distinct from the ordinary civil servant, to go on until 75 years of age. That is another anomaly. On the Railway Rates Tribunal one is allowed to adjudicate until 75 years of age, but the Traffic Commissioners can work only until they are 65 years of age, a. difference of 10 years.

Captain Hudson: There are two categories which are dealt with under this Money Resolution. The Chairmen of Traffic Commissioners and the Chairman of the Appeal Tribunal will come under the ordinary Civil Service procedure under the Superannuation Acts, 1834 to 1935. The President of the Railway Rates Tribunal is in an entirely different category. He is established under the Railways Act, paid by the railway companies, and comes in in the same way as what are called Masters or superior quasi-judicial officers under an entirely different Act, the Supreme Court of Judicature Act, 1925, in which the retiring age is laid down as 72, with an extension to 75. There are two different Acts and two different categories of people.

Mr. Maxton: I was basing my remarks on the reference to this being subject to modifications with regard to the retiring age. I assumed that if it were thought that the President of the Railway Rates Tribunal could perform his arduous duties adequately until 75 years of age, an age at which the majority of manual workers have been retired for 10 years, presumably that would be the standard that would be in the mind of the Government with reference to the Chairmen of the Traffic Commissioners also. At any rate, the Government are asking for powers to modify what is the ordinary existing position for civil servants who now retire at 65, and in whose case there is not even an upward limit of 75.

Mr. Bevan: Would the Parliamentary Secretary inform the House what is the effect of the modifications referred to in the Resolution? We are quite clear that the Chairman of the Railway Rates Tribunal can go on until 75 years of age. We would like to know at what age must the Chairmen of the Traffic Commissioners retire.

Captain Hudson: The retiring age in The case of the Traffic Commissioners and the Chairman of the Appeal Tribunal will be 65, with a possible extension to 70. The ordinary Civil Service practice, under the Superannuation Acts, is retirement at 60, with an extension to 65, but ordinary civil servants, in very exceptional circumstances and with the sanction of the Treasury, may be retained beyond 65, although very few are, and in that case, if the officer retires after the age of 65, the additional allowance which is given will be reduced by 5 per cent. for each completed year of service after that age. This reduction is waived in the case of the Traffic Commissioners, because we are asking the Committee to increase the age from 6o to 65, with the additional five years. I hope that is clear.

Mr. Maxton: Yes, I think it is. I want it to be clearly understood that these men, who were originally appointed to temporary positions, are now getting life appointments on Civil Service terms, with an extension of their active life far beyond that which is normally granted to the ordinary civil servant. These are drastic changes, and I do not think the House is entitled to pass this Money Resolution as though it were a trivial thing remedying one or two injustices in the case of

one or two public servants. I think it creates injustices and anomalies that will be resented by a large number of civil servants. There is a further point on which I would like to have some information. How are people to be recruited for these positions? How are the vacancies to be filled? I can see you getting restless, Sir, but I think I can attach my remarks to the terms of the Amendment. The men who are now in these positions are getting the right to pensions after 10 years of service, and no civil servant gets a right to a pension until he has been serving actively for 20 or 30 years, unless he has broken down in health. Perhaps the assumption is that these men were broken down in health before they started and are entitled to a break-down pension right away; but surely we are not going to commit ourselves to the principle that pensions can be earned in the service of the State for a minimum of 10 years' service. That has never been the practice.
The general conception of a pension in the public service has been, "Here is a man who has devoted his life to the public service; he has had special qualities which, if used in any other walk of life, would have given him a greater earning capacity than was permitted to him in the Civil Service; he has lost something in the way of remuneration by devoting himself to the public service at a remuneration that did not allow him to make provision for his old age, and, therefore, the State feels it desirable and necessary to see that he is decently treated in his old age." But this Resolution is not making provision for old age. Suppose that some younger man came in, 10 years of service would qualify him for a pension. Anybody may be brought into these positions. The ordinary civil servant is recruited into the service after a stringent and careful examination in the case of positions carrying the kind of remuneration that is attached to these positions. The competitive examination for the first division of the Indian Civil Service is, as everyone knows, the stiffest competitive examination that is held in this land.

The Chairman: I cannot agree that the hon. Member has succeeded in bringing his remarks within the terms of the Amendment. The Amendment distinctly deals with the question of pensions to people who are already entitled to a pension from some other source.

Mr. Maxton: I am sorry to think that there should have been any infringement of the Rules of Order in what I said. I leave the point now, but hope to have an opportunity of dealing more adequately with this question on the Second Reading of the Bill which is to be presented. I associate myself heartily with the views put forward by the Mover and supporter of the Amendment, and if they carry their Amendment into the Division Lobby, I can assure them of my support.

8.46 p.m.

Mr. R. J. Taylor: I also support the Amendment, and it appears to me that the Government in bringing forward this proposal show the effects of living in a rarefied atmosphere. The atmosphere in which they live is so rarefied by enormous salaries that they have difficulty in appreciating how the workers generally will view a proposal of this description. Personally I am astounded that it should be considered necessary to recruit these Commissioners from outside the ranks of the permanent Civil Service. I feel a respect for the Civil Service and during the Debate last week on the five discharged dockyard workers, one's respect for the Civil Service must have been immensely increased by some of the references which were made to it. From what was said about the Civil Service then, I came to the conclusion, as I am sure many of my hon. Friends did, that we have men in the Civil Service who are capable of managing any job that the Government want them to do. From the point of view of economy these positions ought to be filled from the Civil Service by young men who would move up in the ordinary course of promotion and in time make room for other younger men. There would then be only one pension to pay to each individual.
My principal objection to the Resolution is this: I have the impression that the Government are unaware of the existence of cases of hardship such as we know of in the country. Let me illustrate the position by one case. I am now referring to the subject of pensions. It is the case of a man who served his country from the days of the old volunteers until the War, when he was gassed and invalided out of the Army, practically a physical wreck. He got a certain pension, but when he endeavoured

to get an increase of that pension the Ministry of Pensions said that any aggravation of his condition was due to his age and not to his War service. The man died, and when the widow tried to get the 16s. a week pension which he had been receiving continued for herself, she could only get a concession on a charity basis. She, mark you, is entitled also to the widow's pension, but she does not get 16s. a week in respect of her late husband's pension and also 10s. a week widow's pension. No, our people never get two pensions in that way. She gets the widow's pension of 10s.a week and 6s.a week of the other pension and she has 16s.a week on which to live, after her man's life has been given for the country. He has given his life so that these people can have two pensions and incomes of over £1,000 a year. How the Government can expect us to stand for that sort of thing passes my comprehension.
We are not opposed to people being paid for the work which they do—not by any means. But we object to proposals such as that contained in this Resolution, and I am pleased that the hon. Member for Stone (Sir J. Lamb) has added his voice to the protest against it. I was particularly pleased at the hon. Member's approach to this question, because if hon. Members opposite begin to look out for the cases of the worst-paid workers in this country. instead of quoting, all the time, the cases of the best-paid workers, we may get some help from the other side in our efforts to lift the worst-paid of our people up to somewhere near the level of the better-paid. I have stated my principal reason for supporting the Amendment, but I could give others. Take the case of a man who has been killed in the pit. There is £300 compensation for the widow and so much for the children. But the widow does not get the widow's pension and something for the children as well. She gets only the one allowance. I believe that the Government will insult the intelligence of all decent-minded men and women and offend the working class of this country if they proceed with this proposal.

8.52 p.m.

Mr. Kelly: I hope it will be recognised by the responsible Department that there is a strong feeling against this proposal.


It is because of that strong feeling that the Amendment has been placed on the Paper. This is not the first occasion on which we have had proposals from the Government concerning pensions for people who are already paid salaries far above what is paid to the general run of workers, and those proposals in some cases have involved double pensions. I therefore ask the Department to reconsider this matter in view of the feeling which exists, that they are showing considerable favour to the people here concerned. I notice that with regard to some sections of employes, the demand that previous service should count is never acceded to by the Government. In this case, however, men who have been in these positions only some seven or eight years I think—[Horn. MEMBERS: Six years "]—-are to be made eligible for pensions within a year or two, and those pensions are to be on a Civil Service basis and are not to be reduced, even if the people concerned are in receipt of higher pensions from other sources.
I would ask whether the Department which is responsible for this proposal treats the lower-paid people in its own service with as much regard as is being shown to these people? I find, with regard to some of the lower-paid people, who have no second pension and who have to rely upon whatever is coming to them from the Department, that the moment they reach the age of 60 and there is the slightest indication that they are suffering from or liable to any illness, the Treasury medical referee is called in to prove that they are not just as fit as they were, and they are compelled to retire and take whatever pension is coming to them at 60. These men will be entitled to begin on pensions at 65 and they may continue until they are 70. Even though they may have received their other pensions at 60 or 65, they may continue until they are 70 in their appointment. In the case of the Chairman of the Tribunal I am glad that it is thought that people at 72 and 75 are just a t the right moment for doing this work and that they are to be considered in such a way that their previous service will be counted in order that they may have this pension. We are asked to agree to a pension if it is a second pension because it happens to come from the funds which are paid under the Railways Act.
This scheme is in keeping with many of those we remember with regard to Colonial Governors, magistrates and diplomats. The Government are prepared to see that all these people have pensions of amounts such as they think are fit for them, and yet, when we suggest that the man or woman who has worked in a factory for 40 years or more should have a more adequate pension than 10s., we are refused. Many of them are even denied that 10s., because they may not have paid contributions during the last year or two before they reach the age of 65. As was well said by one of the previous speakers, this system helps those who have had a chance of putting something by because of the salaries they received, but it will not help those who need assistance. It is acknowledged that the work these men do is onerous, but I do not know that their task is more onerous than the work of many other people, and I do not see why it is not possible for other men to have the opportunity of occupying these positions. I hope that the Amendment will be carried in order to make it clear, while we are prepared to agree to adequate pensions for people, that if these people are to have their previous service counted it is only right that other people in the Government service should have their previous years counted in order to qualify for pensions.

8.58 p.m.

Mr. Bevan: My hon. Friends who have brought forward this Amendment are entitled to the gratitude of the Committee for having raised this issue, because it gives us an opportunity of speaking about a subject which I have heard discussed with great indignation in many parts of the country. I should like to correct a statement of the mover of the Amendment with regard to the Traffic Commissioner for the South Wales area. I would not like it to be understood that listened to a remark of that sort without correcting it. I am sure that the hon. Member made the mistake inadvertently. Those who know him and I am sure, everybody interested in local government, industry and commerce generally were gratified with the appointment of Mr. James to his position of Commissioner. I happened to know that he did not take up the position because he had retired from the Bar. In fact, he was


in active work and he took up the position because, I think, of a physical affliction which was making it very difficult for him to practise at the Bar. He did not retire, therefore, and he was not in receipt of a pension, so that he is not one of the criminals. That is not to say that I do not agree with most of what my hon. Friend said.

Mr. E. Smith: I did not say that this individual came within the category of those with whom I mostly dealt. I said that he was a member of the legal profession, and that such people were already well paid in life.

Mr. Bevan: I cannot subscribe to the argument that the State should employ a person in one capacity and deny him a salary because of the money he is earning in another. I cannot, therefore, accept that he should be denied a salary or pension because he happens to have earned money at the Bar. With the main purpose of my hon. Friend's speech, however, I am in enthusiastic agreement. This Debate reminds me of a statement made to me by a Member of this House who was a close personal friend of mine and died in tragic circumstances—the late hon. Member for Eastbourne—who, in a fit of depression which occurred some weeks before his death, said that it seemed to him that the whole of life was a conspiracy to cheat the young.
It seems to me that the proposal now before the Committee is evidence of the fact that when these appointments are made they are usually made of men in advanced years. I know that I cannot discuss that on this Amendment, and I do not propose to do so, but there are many important points arising out of this Resolution which can be discussed on the Bill. We are discussing now the narrow issue that, as the proposal now stands, many of these Traffic Commissioners will be entitled to receive not only the pensions they are now receiving, but another pension in addition. The proposal of the Amendment is that they shall receive whichever pension is the larger, but not both. Although I know that a comparatively small percentage of the country is affected by this proposal, I believe that hon. Members on this side of the House and, indeed, in all parts of the House, can in their constituencies put their fingers on instances where men have been

brought into public employment when they are already in receipt of a State pension or some other form of retirement pension. People are very indignant, and rightly indignant, that it should be so. We are under the impression that in some queer way only those who have acquired reputations in some way or another are fitted to occupy these positions. Somehow people never have the courage to buy a pig in a poke. Everybody has a Greta Garbo complex and feels that only the stars can be appointed to these jobs.
So we get some retired chief constable appointed, although I can imagine no office which has the effect of producing a less judicial mind than that of a chief constable. I can imagine no job in which people acquire ultimately a greater distrust of and disrespect for the law than being a chief constable for 40 or 50 years. I have known chief constables with almost as long service as that who have been appointed to positions. It seems to be unfortunate, to put it no higher, that we should now have to discuss a proposal which adds to the retirement pension of a chief constable another pension in the event of his being able to serve 10 years under this scheme.
There are other cases where constables who have been retired at 45 years of age —at 45 or 46 or 50—in the prime of life, and in receipt of pensions of £2 10s. a week—even £3 5s.a week, my hon. Friend remarks—have been appointed as bailiffs to county courts. A demonstration was organised in my constituency once to protest against such a proceeding. It is not the case, of course, that this practice has any serious effect on the unemployment figures, but it shows an attitude of mind, an approach to this problem, so aloof from the point of view of the ordinary person, that I am astounded that we should perpetuate the practice. It seems that the further one is removed from the actual work of producing wealth the better the treatment one receives.
My hon. Friend here has given us illustrations to show that ordinary people are not treated in this way. If a man happens to be unemployed when he reaches 65 years of age his unemployment benefit of 17s. automatically drops to a payment of 10s., on the assumption that he is no longer available for work. It is assumed that at 65 he has fallen out of the labour


market, and the money he receives drops from 17s.to 10s. Many hon. Members are aware of the tragic circumstances of a number of men in that position. In these pension arrangements we are increasing the pensionable age from 60 to 65. In the Civil Service it is optional, I gather, whether a man is allowed to go at 65. Here we are taking powers to continue the age to 70. In most of these cases one can assume that a man will go on to 70, unless he actually gibbers with senile decay before that time. We are even making provision for the chairman of a railway rates tribunal to go on till 70. It is an astonishing, troglodyte proposal. The best service one could render o some of these men would be to take them out of harness and give them leisure.

The Chairman: I have allowed a good deal of latitude, but I think we have been getting further away from the subject with each speaker.

Mr. Bevan: I am sure that I have infringed your ruling only very slightly, because it is obvious that our Amendment becomes pertinent to this matter only if, in point of fact, the age limits are increased. Very many of these men would not come under the pension scheme at all if the maximum age limit were not raised, because they have to serve ten years in order to do so.

The Chairman: The hon. Member's argument is very ingenious but what lawyers would describe as a little too remote.

Mr. Bevan: I am not in the fortunate position of the Chair. I am not able to dismiss an argument with an adjective. I shall have to bow to your ruling, but if the Committee were more fully attended I hope we should have been able to convince hon. Members that the Government ought not to be permitted to persist in a proposal which is so obviously unjust, which treats different members of the community in different ways, and perpetuates the vicious practice of permitting two pensions to be paid to public servants when those pensions come from public funds. I heartily support the Amendment; and I trust that when the Committee have an opportunity of voting upon the proposal in the Bill they will reject it and force the Government to bring in a more just proposal.

9.12 p.m.

Captain Hudson: I must confine my remarks now strictly to the Amendment. The hon. Member who moved it talked about a differentiation in treatment, but I hope I shall be able to show to the Committee that if they accepted this Amendment they would then be creating a difference among people who are all doing the same work. I thought I had made it clear, when I moved the Resolution, that it does not affect any of the existing officers. I think that answers the question of the hon. Member for Stone (Sir J. Lamb), since no one of those who might become eligible for pension is in receipt of a pension for previous service under the Crown.

Mr. Batey: Are they receiving pensions of any kind?

Captain Hudson: No, they are not. If the hon. Member looks at the Amendment he will see that it deals simply with previous service under the Crown. Therefore, we can discuss this matter not as affecting any individual at present serving as a Traffic Commissioner but as a general principle.

Mr. Ede: The hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. Ellis Smith) instanced certain chief constables who are now in receipt of pensions from public funds. Half the money is provided out of monies voted by this House and half is provided by the police authorities whom they have served. Are we to understand that none of them will be eligible for a pension under the Bill which is to be introduced?

Captain Hudson: That is so. There are five Traffic Commissioners who are in receipt of pensions—one a colonial pension, three police pensions and one army pension. The hon. Member who moved the Amendment talked about a major-general, but he is no longer a Traffic Commissioner. None of these commissioners is eligible for a pension, because they are over age or for other reasons.

Mr. Bevan: On principle they would be, but by accident they are not.

Captain Hudson: But they are not—and we have to deal with the future. I want to argue this case on its merits as regards future appointments. The Amendment would actually subject the occupants of these offices to a disability


which does not apply to any other person to whom the Superannuation Acts apply. This inability to draw two pensions does not apply to any other Civil Service appointment. For instance, if a time-expired soldier obtains civil employment under the Government he continues to draw his pension. We have some in my own Department, and at the end of their time, if they are eligible for a pension, they will then draw two pensions. I want to make that clear, because the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) seemed to be under the impression that we were doing something new. We are doing nothing of the kind; we are simply continuing the existing practice. If the Amendment were carried and the party opposite had their way, we should have to consider the position of other people, such as time-expired soldiers, who are at present in civil employment. That applies to service in the Post Office, in the Dockyards, and, as I say, departmental messengers in my own Department, and no doubt to other Departments as well.
I would ask the Committee to note also that the Amendment would introduce differentiation between people who have been in the public service and those who have been in outside service. You would get one of the Traffic Commissioners who had made provision for his old age and nothing would happen to him. If, on the other hand, he had a pension for public service, he would lose it. The man who had made provision outside the public service would have nothing done to him. Under the Amendment, the pensions which are not from public offices are not affected. If a man had a pension from some civil employment it would not be affected. In the case of the police pension, half is paid, I understand, by the Government, and the other half by the local authority. Such pensions would not be affected by the Amendment, although Army pensions would. That is the kind of discrimination which would be brought about.

Mr. E. Smith: If the Committee accepted the principle, the Amendment could be applied generally.

Captain Hudson: I think the hon. Member would find it extremely difficult to draw up an Amendment to deal with people who had a private income. I have

to speak to the Amendment as it appears on the Paper.

Mr. Smith: The Minister of Transport would have to take the principle into consideration prior to appointments being made.

Captain Hudson: I do not think the hon. Member would mean to differentiate against an ex-servant of the Crown in comparison with someone who had been in private service or in the service of a local authority.

Mr. Smith: They should not be appointed.

Captain Hudson: The Amendment would hinder our efforts to get the very best men for these positions. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Hon. Members opposite jeer, but all these appointments, except one, were made by one of their own leaders. We have to have men of experience and standing. Among the Traffic Commissioners are people from all walks of life with very good records and very good previous history. There is one gentleman who was a trade union official. I see no reason why public servants who have rendered service to the State in two offices should be deprived of pension for either period of employment. If a man has earned his pension I see no reason why he should not get it. A big question of principle is involved, and I think that this is not the time to deal with it piecemeal. I therefore hope that the Committee will reject the Amendment and pass this Money Resolution.

9.22 p.m.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: I have sat through the whole of this Debate and have listened to the Minister's reply. I accept without question the statement of the Minister that none of the holders of these offices will come under it, but I cannot help thinking that he has, in his defence, proved a good deal too much. In attempting to justify the Resolution he has shown what would be the intention under the Bill, of which he thoroughly approves, but of which very large numbers of people thoroughly disapprove. I would make our position clear. We have recognised all through the position of civil servants in this country. We have believed, and we continue to believe, in the desirability of according pensions to civil servants. We think it is a right


method to adopt, and we should like to see a similar method applied throughout the world of private industry. One of our objections to the system is that pensions are applied only in a limited number of undertakings.
Suppose that a servant is in receipt of a salary in an office which entitles him to a pension after a period of years. I do not think any of us would disagree with the idea that, if he were removed to another office of a similar character, he should not lose his pension rights by that transfer. After 40 years' service, 20 years in one Department and 20 years in another, his pension right should be the same as though he had stayed in the one occupation. The position is considerably different from that; in the first place because, as the hon. and gallant Gentleman has himself explained, the age limits are different, and that an addi-

tional pension may be acquired by a man who comes within the category. I think it is true that no present occupants of this position are chief constables or men who are drawing pensions from public offices, but it is quite possible that in the future such men may be brought into the schemes.

The wording of the Amendment may go a little beyond what would be eminently reasonable, but we cannot alter that wording at this stage of the proceedings. We feel it necessary to make a protest on the general principle for which the Amendment stands, by recording our vote. I therefore propose to ask my hon. Friends to go into the Lobby to support the Amendment.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 110; Noes, 158.

Division No. 63.]
AYES.
[9.27 p.m.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir F. Dyke
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Acland, R. T. D. (Barnstaple)
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Potts, J.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Hicks, E. G.
Price, M. P.


Adamson, W. M.
Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Pritt, D. N.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Hopkin, D.
Quibell, D. J. K.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Jagger, J.
Richards, R. (Wrexham)


Barnes, A. J.
John, W.
Ridley, G.


Barr, J.
Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)
Riley, B.


Batey, J.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Ritson, J.


Bellenger, F. J,
Kelly, W. T.
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)


Benson, G.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Rowson, G.


Bevan, A.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Seely, Sir H. M.


Broad, F. A.
Lathan, G.
Sexton. T. M.


Brooke, W.
Leach, W.
Shinwell, E.


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire)
Lee, F.
Short, A.


Buchanan, G.
Leonard, W.
Silkin, L.


Burke, W. A.
Leslie, J. R.
Silverman, S. S.


Cape, T.
Logan, D. G.
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Cluse, W. S.
Lunn, W.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Ede, J. C.
McGhee, H. G.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
MacLaren, A.
Thorne, W.


Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Maclean, N.
Tinker, J. J.


Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
MacMillan, M. (Western Isles)
Viant, S. P.


Foot, D. M.
Mainwaring, W. H.
Walkden, A. G.


Frankel, D.
Mander, G. le M
Walker, J.


Gallacher, W.
Marshall, F.
Watkins, F. C.


Gardner, B. W.
Mathers, G.
Watson, W. McL.


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Maxton, J.
Welsh, J. C.


Gibbins, J.
Messer, F.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Gibson, R. (Greenock)
Milner, Major J.
Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)


Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Montague, F.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Grenfell, D. R.
Muff, G.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbre, W.)
Oliver, G. H.



Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Owen, Major G.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Hall, J. H. (Whilechapel)
Parker, J.
Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Groves.


Harris, Sir P. A.
Parkinson, J. A.





NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Barclay-Harvey, Sir C. M.
Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham)


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
Birchall, Sir J. D.
Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.)


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'kn'hd)
Blaker, Sir R.
Bull, B. B.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Blindell, Sir J.
Burgin, Dr. E. L.


Aske, Sir R. W.
Bower, Comdr. R. T.
Butler, R. A.


Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.
Bowyer, Capt. Sir G. E. W.
Cartland, J. R. H.


Balfour, G. (Hampstead)
Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)




Clarke, Lt.-Col. R. S. (E. Grinstead)
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-
Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.


Colville, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. D. J.
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. J. W. (Ripon)
Ramsbotham, H.


Cook, Sir T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.)
Holmes, J. S.
Ramsden, Sir E.


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Hore-Belisha, Rt. Hon. L.
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)


Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)


Courthope, Col. Sir G. L.
Hudson, R. S. (Southport)
Reid, Sir D. D. (Down)


Craven-Ellis, W.
Hulbert, N. J.
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)


Critchley, A.
Hume, Sir G. H.
Remer, J. R.


Crooke, J. S.
Hunter, T.
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)


Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.
Jones, L. (Swansea W.)
Ropner, Colonel L.


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)
Ross, Major Sir R. D. (Londonderry)


Cross, R. H.
Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)


Crowder, J. F. E.
Law, R. K. (Hull, S. W.)
Rowlands, G.


Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)
Leckie, J. A.
Salt, E. W.


Dawson, Sir P.
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Scott, Lord William


De Chair, S. S.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Selley, H. R.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Llewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J.
Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)


Denville, Alfred
Loftus, P. C.
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)


Doland, G. F.
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Shepperson, Sir E. W.


Dorman-Smith, Major R. H.
MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.
Simmonds, O. E.


Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)
M'Connell, Sir J.
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)


Dugdale, Major T. L.
McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Edmondson, Major Sir J.
McKie, J. H.
Spens, W. P.


Ellis, Sir G.
Magnay, T.
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Elliston, Capt. G. S.
Makins, Brig.-Gen. E.
Storey, S.


Elmley, Viscount
Manningham-Buller, Sir M.
Stourton, Major Hon. J. J


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Erskine-Hill, A. G.
Markham, S. F.
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Evans, Capt. A. (Cardiff, S.)
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Findlay, Sir E.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.


Fleming, E. L.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Titchfield, Marquess of


Fremantle, Sir F. E.
Moreing, A. C.
Turton, R. H.


Furness, S. N.
Morris-Jones, Sir Henry
Walker-Smith, Sir J.


Fyfe, D. P. M.




Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir J.
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Gluckstein, L. H.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
Warrender, Sir V.


Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)
Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.
Wells, S. R.


Grimston, R. V.
Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.


Gritten, W. G. Howard
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. G. A.
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Guest, Maj. Hon. O. (C'mb'rw'll, N. W.)
Palmer, G. E. H.
Wragg, H.


Guy, J. C. M.
Penny, Sir G.
Wright, Squadron-Leader J. A. C.


Hannah, I. C.
Petherick, M.
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Hannon, Sir P. J. H.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.



Harbord, A.
Pilkington, R.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.
Commander Southby and Captain


Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Radford, E. A.
Hope.


Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.
Raikes, H. V. A. M.

Main Question again proposed.

9.34 p.m.

Mr. Ede: The Committee having disposed of that Amendment, by a majority which in view of the normal majority of the Government must be considered as a vote of censure, and which in the days when the House of Commons was at its greatest strength would certainly have led to the resignation of the Minister, we can now go back to the main Question. While I intend to vote against the main Question, I want to make it plain that I welcome the provision whereby these officers will become permanent officers, not removable at the end of seven years. They are people to whom judicial functions are given, and I think that any person placed in that position should be free from the fear that at the end of seven years, if he has not met with the approval of someone or other, he may not be reappointed. That is a totally wrong position in which to place any officer of the State, who is expected to exercise judicial functions.
I am bound to say, however, that I view this Resolution with very grave misgiving, because it indicates in other parts that the Minister in the future intends to appoint people of about the same age at which previous appointments were made. I think we ought to recognise that these men will have to deal with problems which are entirely modern, and that they should bring to their decision on these problems a judgment that is not warped by the knowledge of what London was like in the days of hansom cabs.
We still have the difficulty all over the country of having people in charge of traffic problems who think there may be a resurrection of the naughty nineties and the methods of locomotion then in vogue. Whether we are better or worse now, at any rate those days have gone, and, as far as traffic conditions are concerned, they have gone forever. The type of mind that was used to considering the problems of those days sometimes finds itself unable to realise how


different are the conditions which have to be dealt with to-day, and I share the view that my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan) attributed to the late Mr. Marjoribanks, that too much of our government, and especially of our local government—and this problem is very largely connected with local government—is in the hands of people of the pre-war generation, with the pre-war type of mind. I am sure we shall not get a really satisfactory solution of these difficulties until people with post-war minds have an opportunity of exercising their judgment upon them.

Mr. Kingsley Griffiths: Look at your own Front Bench.

Mr. Ede: There are some people who are in the unfortunate position that they have no Front Bench, and never will have again; and they are in that position largely because they allowed the pre-war mind to dominate their policy during the War and after the War. All I can say is that, if there is no resurrection for the naughty nineties, there is certainly no resurrection for a party that believes that in some mysterious way or other things that were true pre-war will be true for all time. After the voice from the grave, I will now continue.
The Committee will, I am sure, agree that the functions of these commissioners are exceedingly important. They have to deal, in many cases, with the livelihood of people who have invested their money or their experience in a particular occupation, and it is highly desirable that those who have to deal with them should be people who realise that, if anything in this country ought to be fluid, it is traffic, and that a static type of mind with regard to traffic problems is not likely to produce fluidity of traffic. For these reasons I regret the indications that the Minister still expects to recruit people who have passed the whole of their lives in some other walk of life, and are going to be brought in at the end of their active life to deal with problems which demand the utmost alertness in those who have to reach these decisions. I cannot imagine anything worse than arranging that a person shall be able to continue as president of the Railway Rates Tribunal until he is 75 years of age. I remember an acquaintance of mine who was a magistrate, but resigned because

of increasing deafness. His granddaughter asked his wife how old granddad was, and she said, "I will set you a problem; he is three score and 10, plus five. How old is that?" The granddaughter replied, "Old enough to be dead." We are proposing that persons well beyond the span that the Psalmist allotted to man should continue in this highly important office where they have to deal—

Mr. Dingle Foot: That is quoting prewar.

Mr. Ede: The story I told had nothing to do with pre-war. It is now proposed that an arrangement should be continued whereby such a person can remain in office until he is 75. The Government must be aware that to quote the precedent of the judges in support of this proposal is to quote something which everyone, I thought, agreed was an anomaly which ought to be removed as soon as possible. I do not believe that anyone's confidence in the law system of the country is increased because judges are allowed to sit until they reach this age, and I am quite sure that people who have to bring their complicated cases relating to railway rates before this tribunal would be a great deal better satisfied if the contributory old age pension rule applied rather than the age to which judges are allowed to continue.
There is just one last question with which I want to deal. I find increasingly in the country an objection to people who have given the whole of what is supposed to be their active life in one occupation being then taken off to deal with some new question. I am sure that we suffer in local government from the type of man who says, "I have made my fortune; I have attended to my own business; and, now that I no longer wish to do that, I will go over and manage the business of the public." That is a wrong idea, and the continued insistence of the Government on their desire for it has already been reproved once by the Committee to-night in the recent Division. I can only hope that, when we go to a vote on the main issue, the Government will be defeated.

9.45 p.m.

Mr. Tinker: I want to vote against this Resolution, and the item dealing with the cost is the main cause of my objection. We have been told that it will ultimately cost £3,000 a year, and on the


Government side it may be said that that is not a big amount, but every Session something like this is attempted to be got through. Last year we made a big protest over the Dominion Governors, when the Government tried to get a similar Resolution through quietly, and every subterfuge which they could think of was used, so that it would not be brought to the notice of the people outside. We were persistent in our objections, and we were met by the same kind of reply as we have had to-night, namely, that the Government were only doing things now that had been done before for other people, and that therefore it would be wrong to attempt to stop at this juncture. The hon. and gallant Member to-night said there was something in our objection, but he asked where it would lead to and added that it would lead to such an examination of other cases that there would be no end to it.

The Deputy - Chairman (Captain Bourne): I think the hon. Member is now arguing a point which the Committee has already decided.

Mr. Tinker: I am arguing the general question, which sometimes we cannot argue on an Amendment. However, I will not pursue it except to say that we on these benches on every occasion when an attempt of this kind is made will make our protest, and we do so because we have a vast number of people who cannot get anything like decency from the House of Commons. Only last week I had a question down in reference to old age pensioners, asking how many of them had to go to the Poor Law for assistance after they had received their 10s. a week, and the reply was that they numbered 200,000, showing clearly that a big section of the community are not getting sufficient with their old age pension. There is no denying the fact that this proposal is giving a body of men sums of money which they do not require. They receive already a big salary, and this will be added on to them by way of superannuation later on. Though it may appear that we have to repeat ourselves times out of number, I believe that a good case is well worth repeating on all occasions, and so we take this opportunity, as we shall take all other opportunities when the Government are doing their class business, to make

our protest. This is merely class business, because it concerns a certain section of the community that belongs to the Government side, well-paid men, who are always being protected by the Government. I call it class distinction of the worst kind, and it is up to hon. Members on these benches to defend our people and to call to the notice of the community outside how badly one side are being treated while the other side get everything they want.

9.48 p.m.

Mr. Gallacher: I would like to appeal to the Minister to withdraw this Resolution and to present a new Memorandum in connection with it. I suggest to him that if he put in his Memorandum that applicants for these jobs should not be above the age of 45 years and should not under any circumstances be men who have retired from a previous job and are drawing a pension from that job—if he had such conditions as those in his Memorandum it would have a very big stimulating effect so far as the applications for these positions are concerned. We have had reference to the numbers of people who draw pensions and get other Civil Service jobs and then get further pensions, but surely Ministers know, or, if they do not, the Members behind them ought to know, that one of the biggest scandals that exists in this county is the fact that men who are drawing substantial pensions—

The Deputy-Chairman: I must point out that the Committee has already decided that point, which cannot be raised again now.

Mr. Bevan: On a point of Order. When we were discussing an Amendment to the Money Resolution, we were subject all the time to Rulings from the Chair which made our discussion extremely narrow. May I submit to you that the questions of the redundancy of pensions, the amount of pensions, and the conditions of pensions are closely involved in the main proposal to increase the maximum age at which these pensions may be given. It was very difficult to discuss the one question distinctly from the other, and now we are forbidden to discuss the whole question, so that it seems to be that the Committee is discussing the whole matter under difficulties.

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) has been long enough in this House to know that when once a Committee has taken a decision on a point, it cannot be reopened. The Committee has decided, by rejecting the Amendment moved just now, the question whether these people are entitled to one pension or to more pensions, and we cannot have that matter raised again to-night.

Mr. Tinker: On a point of Order. Is not in order, when a sum of money is mentioned in a Resolution, to use comparisons in order to show that the people who contribute this money should not have a say in what the amount of money is that they are to get by way of pensions?

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member seems to have forgotten that a specific Amendment to limit this question has been decided, and we must abide by that decision to-night.

Mr. Gallacher: I must bow to your Ruling, Captain Bourne, but I may say that my Parliamentary advisers advised me that in order to get scope, I should bring out at the beginning the question of the Memorandum. I am entitled to advise the Minister that a new Memorandum, instead of the present one, would be much more desirable and would much better meet the needs of the situation—a Memorandum laying down an age limit and laying down the condition that nobody already definitely and properly settled for life need apply. It would mean that the young men about whom we are so much concerned in other discussions would get an opportunity. It is no use the Minister saying, as he might say, that we cannot deal with this problem on this limited question. He could lay down the principle in this Resolution and in this Memorandum, and then apply the principle generally on every other question of public appointment that comes up.
There are thousands of young men in this country who only want encouragement, but they do not get it. I have a letter which has just come to me to-day from a comparatively young man, a man of about 40 years of age, who has been in the public service, but because of cutting down has been cut out, and he wants to know how it is possible to get a job. As a matter of fact, we find that

the general tendency is to block in every direction young men or comparatively young men and to put some old fossil, just because he is a fossil, into one of these jobs. I am certain, and I do not care who happens to be the individual who is chosen, that the Traffic Commissioners are more qualified for blocking traffic than for anything in the way of facilitating traffic.
So I make a special appeal to the Minister and to the Members behind him not automatically to push these things through, not to put up barriers against young men getting employment, and not to leave the opportunities that have been left in the past for men who are well fixed just to make a racket of official appointments, because it has mostly been a racket among a whole bunch of Al Capone's, in helping one another into positions, men not concerned with the public good or with the real welfare of the country; and so I ask the Minister to consider the question of bringing in a new Memorandum laying down an age limit and the qualification that those who are already well and properly fixed in life need not apply.

9.55 p.m.

Mr. Bevan: The proposal that these positions of the Traffic Commissioners, the chairmen of the tribunal under the Road and Rail Acts and the President of the Railway Rates Tribunal should be made permanent is one which I think is very disquieting. It is true that my hon. Friend behind me welcomed it and the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) took the opposite view. I daresay there is a good deal to be said on both sides, but we must remember that these men occupy very important positions indeed and have to decide issues involving many thousands of pounds. Many people's businesses have been ruined as a consequence of their decisions and others have had their fortunes made. When the Acts were discussed, very many legal luminaries in all parts of the House expressed grave concern about the anomalous position of these chairmen. It is not right to compare their positions with those of judges of the Court, because they are appointed by the Minister and can be removed by him, and an appeal lies from their decision to him. They are not given security of tenure. That is not the position at all. Under the existing proposal


their appointments have to be renewed at the end of seven years. It is true that the seven years' limit is abolished, but there is substituted for it a form of control by the Minister which is more deadly.
Almost all these men are too old to qualify to enter the pension scheme. In other words, they were all over 60 years of age when they were appointed, otherwise they would serve for 10 years. They are now to be subject to dismissal by the Minister at any time after 65, and the Chairman of the Railway Rates Tribunal up to 75. The Financial Memorandum explains that the Civil Service retirement age is 60, with the option on the part of the Department concerned to make it 65. This raises the limit of 60 to 65, with the option of 70 and, in the case of the Chairman of the Railway Rates Tribunal, 75.
The Committee can visualise the relationship between these people and the Minister, who at any time can plead their advanced years as a reason for removing them from office. That is not security of tenure. It leaves them at the most exposed time of their lives at the mercy of those who hear appeals from them. So it is wrong to say that in substituting a seven years' limit for a permanency you are putting these men in a superior judicial position. It would be far better that they should be told that at a certain age they must retire, but that until that age they have security of tenure. When the seven years' limit was there there was always to be assumed some sort of connection between these men and outside industry. Now they are made Civil servants with judicial powers but without judicial tenure. That is a very serious position.
When the matter was before the House it was said that the only protection we could have against bureaucratic tyranny was the right of appeal to the courts, but that was rejected on many grounds. One was that in any case it would make the hearings before these chairmen frightfully expensive, because witnesses and counsel would appear before them in the ordinary way and the procedure of the courts would be blocked by appeals. Those were the reasons given by the laity, though I did not see any apprehension on the part of the lawyers on the

ground that the courts would be blocked. They viewed that possibility with considerable satisfaction. But every one was concerned about the position of these chairmen. They would be put in a much healthier position, and the appellants before them would be much more reassured, if the Minister did not have this arbitrary power of removal at any time, only having to plead advanced years as an excuse for removing them, though perhaps the real reason might be that their decisions quarrelled with his point of view.
I should like to reinforce what my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) has said. It seems to me that matters connected with age are always discussed in a ribald spirit. Every one begins to grin when thinking of people of 70 or 75 doing important work, and we are perfectly entitled to grin, because it is absurd that we should entrust important public matters to people at that irresponsible age. After a certain age the older a man gets the more irresponsible he becomes. The future to which he is responsible is shorter. It is only the young who have any sense of responsibility for the future. It is absurd that such important work should be entrusted to people whose minds are dead. They might be able to apply more knowledge, but they can never acquire more understanding. It seems to me that the House of Commons looks at these questions in exactly the same way as the mediaeval agricultural community, where the older man was the wiser man. The general attitude towards these problems, which is that these grave matters ought always to be entrusted to the old, is a relic of the days when the individual was the repository of tribal knowledge. It is far better that work of this description should be entrusted to young men who are now clamouring at the lower steps of the ladder of all professions.

Mr. McKie: Is it because this book I hold gives the year of birth of the hon. Member as 1879 that he is so keen on this matter?

Mr. Bevan: I have never troubled to correct that age. At the moment the House of Commons is doing a great disservice in keeping people on. Take the case of the Chairman of the Railway Rates Tribunal at the age of 75. It is


fantastic that our railway system should be presided over by a person of such an age. Although it might easily happen that an old man could still be fresh, I hold the view that the general scheme should be that people should be educated up to a certain age, and work up from that age to another, and then be given leisure, and not be allowed to perpetrate any more follies on the community. I am told that in the legal profession there is a very small number of men at the top able to earn very big salaries indeed, and a very large number of young men at the bottom unable to secure briefs. It has never been alleged that the young men at the bottom are unemployed because they are incompetent. Many of them perhaps may be, but I have been told that one of the reasons why they are unemployed, is that firms having legal business to transact will not take the risk of entrusting it to an inexperienced young person.

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member is getting away from the point.

Mr. Bevan: I was going to point out that here you are adding 10 and 15 years to the life of these people offered by these judicial and semi-judicial positions, when there are perfectly competent younger men who could be moved up if these men were moved out.

Mr. Magnay: Is the hon. Member advocating the lethal chamber for these men?

Mr. Bevan: I am sorry that the hon. Member has so melancholy a view of his future that he looks forward only to work or death. My argument which is substantiated by the facts, is that the Committee ought not to agree to a proposal which emphasises the view, which is entirely contrary to the facts, that there are no young men in the community able to do these jobs. It is an outrage on decency that we should seriously be authorising the Minister of Transport to keep a man of 75 years of age in an important position of this kind. One of the reasons is that every time these decisions are faced people will not take the risk of appointing inexperienced people to any job at all. They always appoint old people merely on the ground that they are old, and they will not take the risk of appointing a young and inexperienced man when they ought all the while to be giving encouragement to people of

that kind. I want to make my protest against this in view of the fact that there are 1,500,000 people unemployed and the professions are glutted by able young men. In some parts of the country the retirement of school teachers is compulsory at 60 because the profession is overcrowded. It is criminal, in view of all this unemployment of intelligent and trained people, that we should be giving powers in this Resolution to keep people in office who ought to have retired long ago and given younger people a chance.

10.1 p.m.

Mr. Foot: I listened with deep interest to the observations of hon. Members above the Gangway on the subject of age. It appears to be the view of hon. Members that everybody's faculties are necessarily atrophied at 70, which is surprising coming from that quarter. One of the most remarkable Parliamentary performances I have seen since I have been a Member of this House was when, in 1931, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) was appointed leader of His Majesty's Opposition at the age of 72. It is on record that when last we had a Labour Cabinet in this country it had a higher average age than any Cabinet in British history. Apart from that side of their argument, there was some substance in the point made by the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) about the question of various officials or persons in judicial positions holding their office during His Majesty's pleasure. We ought to have more explanation than we have had as to why this Resolution takes that particular form. I can understand their holding their offices during good behaviour, but it seems to introduce an entirely different principle if they are to hold their office during His Majesty's pleasure. Not all these people are in the position of being responsible to the Minister of Transport.
Take, for instance, the chairman of the tribunal under the Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933. I think that I am right in saying that he is entirely independent of the Ministry of Transport. He hears appeals from the licensing authorities who have to administer the Road and Rail Traffic Act and are not under the direction of the Ministry of Transport at all. The


terms on which they have to administer the Act and the considerations which they have to bear in mind in deciding whether to grant or to withhold licences for carrying goods by road are determined not by the Ministry at all but by the Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933. Therefore, both the licensing authorities and the chairman of the Appeal Tribunal are in a quasi-judicial position. We frequently in this House hear complaints made as to the operation of that particular Statute. Questions are asked of the Minister of Transport as to why the number of "B" licences is being cut down. The Minister replied, quite rightly, that he had no power in the matter to direct the licensing authority, or to say what the chairman of the Appeal Tribunal shall do, because the chairman of the Appeal Tribunal and the licensing authority must take their direction from the Statute.
If these officers were to hold their offices simply during His Majesty's pleasure, and could be dismissed at any moment, it might be thought that they might be subject to great pressure from the Minister. I do not say that that pressure would be exercised, but it would be a possibility. When you have someone who is occupying an entirely independent position and discharging a quasi-judicial function, he is in a very much stronger position if he is appointed for a term of years and cannot be dismissed at a moment's notice.

10.16 p.m.

Captain Hudson: I will reply briefly to the points that have been raised. The statement made by the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) that these traffic commissioners hold very important positions really answered a great many of the arguments that were made. They have to hold very important positions of a quasi-judicial character, and for that reason great care has to be taken to see that they are people who are capable of carrying out this important bit of work, not only fairly but so that the people affected by their decisions may think and know that they are being fairly dealt with. The hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) said he objected to people who had been in some previous walk of life being put into a new and

completely different job. I am paraphrasing his language. I do not think that in regard to a position like a traffic commissioner you can avoid their having had some previous history and some previous experience, especially when it appears to be generally agreed that they cannot be much under 45 years of age. The real complaint from hon. Members opposite is that the age limit is too great. No doubt we shall discuss that further when the Bill is before the House in Committee, but it is felt that the age limit that we have laid down will allow really suitable people to take these positions and to hold them during a period when they are doing useful work for the State. If you have a good man you want to keep him. You do not want to have to lose him at an early age, although I entirely agree with hon. Members opposite that you do not want to keep him when he is past his work.
As regards the term "during His Majesty's pleasure," there is no alteration in the law. In Section 63 of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, the words are:
The Minister may remove any commissioner from his office for inability or misbehaviour.
That is exactly the position now. I understand that the chairman of the appeal tribunal is in the same position. The hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Foot) put right a matter which was wrongly stated by the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale. The appeals to the Minister of Transport are on the passenger side under the Road Traffic Act, 1930. The appeals under the Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933, are to an independent tribunal and not to the Minister. I have dealt with the question of age. We think that the proposal in the Resolution will get us the best possible people who can be obtained for these very responsible jobs, and I hope that the Committee will agree to it.

Mr. Foot: The Parliamentary Secretary said that it represents the present position. In the Resolution both phrases are included, and it shows that the Government definitely prefer the words "during His Majesty's pleasure" instead of "holding office for a term of years." As the Resolution is drafted that contrast is drawn, and what we want to know is why that has been put in.

Captain Hudson: I understand that it is the normal and appropriate wording


which will bring these people under the Superannuation Acts. There is nothing sinister in it.

Mr. Batey: In the Resolution the Government are proposing to make these appointments permanent. I want to know whether if we pass the Resolution it will mean that when we come to consider the Bill, we cannot debate the question of the permanency of these appointments?

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member can hardly expect me to give a Ruling on a Money Resolution on a Bill which has not yet been presented, on Amendments which I have not seen, to be moved in the Committee stage. It is always possible for the Committee on a Bill to derogate from the terms of a Money Resolution, although they cannot go beyond them.

Mr. Batey: If we cannot go beyond the terms of the Money Resolution, I take it that when we come to the Bill we shall not be able to deal with the question of these permanent appointments referred to in the Money Resolution?

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member has misunderstood me. I said that he could derogate from the terms of the Money Resolution, that he could agree to something less than the terms of the Money Resolution, but that he could not propose an Amendment going beyond them. It appears to me—I speak without committing myself or the Chairman of Ways and Means—that a proposal to make them temporary appointments would be something less than the terms of the Money Resolution.

Main Question put.

The Committee divided: Ayes, 183; Noes, 89.

Division No. 64.]
AYES.
[10.23 p.m.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir F. Dyke
Dorman-Smith, Major R. H.
Law, R. K. (Hull, S. W.)


Acland, R. T. D. (Barnstaple)
Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)
Leckie, J. A.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Dugdale, Major T. L.
Leech, Dr. J. W.


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Duncan, J. A. L.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'kn'hd)
Ellis, Sir G.
Llewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Elliston, Capt. G. S.
Loftus, P. C.


Aske, Sir R. W.
Elmley, Viscount
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.


Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.
Emmott, C. E. G. C.
Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)


Balfour, G. (Hampstead)
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.


Barclay-Harvey, Sir C. M.
Erskine-Hill, A. G.
M'Connell, Sir J.


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Evans, Capt. A. (Cardiff, S.)
McEwen, Capt. J. H. F


Birchall, Sir J. D.
Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
McKie, J. H.


Blaker, Sir R.
Everard, W. L.
Magnay, T.


Blindell, Sir J.
Fildes, Sir H.
Makins, Brig.-Gen. E.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Findlay, Sir E.
Mander, G. le M.


Bower, Comdr. R. T.
Fleming, E. L.
Manningham-Buller, Sir M.


Bowyer, Capt. Sir G. E. W.
Foot, D. M.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Fremantle, Sir F. E.
Markham, S. F.


Brown, Col. O. C. (Hexham)
Furness, S. N.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Fyfe, D. P. M.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)


Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.)
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)


Bull, B. B.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir J.
Moreing, A. C.


Burgin, Dr. E. L.
Gluckstein, L. H.
Morris-Jones, Sir Henry


Butler, R. A.
Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)


Cartland, J. R. H.
Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)


Carver, Major W. H.
Grimston, R. V.
Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.


Cary, R. A.
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Nall, Sir J.


Castlereagh, Viscount
Guest, MaJ. Hon. O. (C'mb'rw'll, N. W.)
Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.


Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Guy, J. C. M.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. G. A.


Clarke, Lt.-Col. R. S. (E. Grinstead)
Hannah, I. C.
Owen, Major G.


Colfox, Major W. P.
Hannon, Sir P. J. H.
Palmer, G. E. H.


Colville, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. D. J.
Harbord, A.



Cook, Sir T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.)
Harris, Sir P. A.
Penny, Sir G.


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)
Petherick, M.


Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Courthope, Col. Sir G. L.
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buohan-
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.


Craven-Ellis, W.
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. J. W. (Ripon)
Radford, E. A.


Critchley, A.
Holmes, J. S.
Raikes, H. V. A. M.


Crooke, J. S.
Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.
Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.


Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.
Hore-Belisha, Rt. Hon. L.
Ramsbotham, H.


Croom-Johnson, R. P
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Ramsden, Sir E.


Cross, R. H.
Hudson, R. S. (Southport)
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)


Crowder, J. F. E.
Hulbert, N. J.
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)


Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)
Hume, Sir G. H.
Reid, Sir D. D. (Down)


Dawson, Sir P.
Hunter, T.
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)


De Chair, S. S.
Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)
Remer, J. R.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Jones, L. (Swansea W.)
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)


Denville, Alfred
Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)
Ropner, Colonel L.


Doland, G. F.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Ross, Major Sir R. D. (Londonderry)




Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Warrender, Sir V.


Rowlands, G.
Southby, Commander A. R. J.
Wells, S. R.


Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.
Spears, Brigadier-General E. L.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Salt, E. W.
Spens. W. P.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.


Scott, Lord William
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Seely, Sir H. M.
Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.
Wragg, H.


Selley, H. R.
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)
Wright, Squadron-Leader J. A. C.


Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)
Strickland, Captain W. F.
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.



Shepperson, Sir E. W.
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Simmonds, O. E.
Titchfield, Marquess of
Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. Lambert


Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)
Turton, R. H.
Ward and Mr. James Stuart.


Somervell. Sir D. B. (Crewe)
Walker-Smith, Sir J.





NOES.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Jagger, J.
Richards, R. (Wrexham)


Adamson, W. M.
John, W.
Ridley, G.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Riley, B.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Kelly, W. T.
Ritson, J.


Barnes, A. J.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)


Barr, J.
Lathan, G.
Rowson, G.


Batey, J.
Leach, W.
Sexton. T. M.


Bellenger, F. J.
Lee, F.
Shinwell, E.


Benson, G.
Leonard, W.
Short, A.


Bevan, A.
Leslie, J. R.
Silkin, L.


Broad, F. A.
Logan, D. G.
Silverman, S. S.


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire)
Lunn, W.
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Buchanan, G.
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Burke, W. A.
McGhee, H. G.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Cape, T.
MacLaren, A.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Maclean, N.
Tinker, J. J.


Ede, J. C.
MacMillan, M. (Western Isles)
Viant, S. P.


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Mainwaring, W. H.
Walkden, A. G.


Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
Marshall, F.
Watkins, F. C.


Gallacher, W.
Maxton, J.
Watson, W. McL.


Gardner, B. W.
Messer, F.
Welsh, J. C.


Gibbins, J.
Milner, Major J.
Whiteley, W.


Gibson, R. (Greenock)
Montague, F.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Muff, G.
Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Oliver, G. H.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Grenfell, D. R.
Parker, J.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Parkinson, J. A.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Potts, J.



Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Price, M. P.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hicks, E. G.
Pritt, D. N.
Mr. Mathers and Mr. Groves.


Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Quibell, D. J. K.



Question put, and agreed to.

Resolution to be reported upon Thursday.

BRITISH SHIPPING [CONTINUANCE OF SUBSIDY].

Resolution reported:
That it is expedient—

(a) to extend by twelve months the period in respect of which subsidies are payable under Part I of the British Shipping (Assistance) Act, 1935, as amended by the British Shipping (Continuance of Subsidy) Act, 1936; and
(b) to make provision for the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of such sums, not exceeding in the aggregate two million pounds, as may be necessary to defray the cost of subsidies payable as aforesaid in respect of tramp voyages and parts of tramp voyages carried out in the year nineteen hundred and thirty-seven, and of any expenses incurred in respect of that year by or on behalf of the Board of Trade under the said Part I."

Bill ordered to be brought in upon the said Resolution by Mr. Runciman, Lieut.-Colonel Colville and Dr. Burgin.

BRTISH SHIPPING (CONTINUANCE OF SUBSIDY) BILL,

"to extend by twelve months the period in respect of which subsidies are payable under Part I of the British Shipping (Assistance) Act, 1935, as amended by the British Shipping (Continuance of Subsidy) Act, 1936, and to provide for the payment of such subsidies and of the expenses of the Board of Trade under the said Part I in respect of the year nineteen hundred and thirty-seven out of moneys provided by Parliament," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Thursday, and to be printed. [Bill No. 72.]

IMPORT DUTIES (IMPORT DUTIES ACT, 1932).

10.32 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Dr. Burgin): I beg to move:
That the Import Duties (Exemptions) (No. 8) Order, 1936, dated the eleventh day


of December, nineteen hundred and thirty-six, made by the Treasury under the Import Duties Act, 1932, a copy of which was presented to this House on the said eleventh day of December, nineteen hundred and thirty-six, be approved.
For the convenience of the House, and with your permission, Mr. Speaker, it has been the custom to make one introductory speech when a number of Import Duties Orders come before the House, leaving the House free to take its decision upon each Order separately. Unless objection is taken to this course, I propose to adopt it now. The two Orders which I am submitting are Import Duties (Exemptions) Order No. 8 dealing with oxalic acid and Additional Import Duties Order No. 32 dealing with knives. Oxalic acid is normally subject to a key industries duty of 33⅓ per cent. but for some time it was exempted from that duty because it was not manufactured within the Empire in substantial quantities. Later an Order was made under the Import Duties Act, 1932, adding it to the free list. The acid is now made in this country in very substantial quantities and consequently the exemption from the key industries duty has been discontinued. It would obviously be anomalous, when an article is subject to a key industry duty of 33 1–3 per cent., to leave it on the Free List, and the present Order takes it off. As the Order would have the effect of imposing a 10 per cent. duty if it ever were re-exempted from key industry duty, it is necessary to trouble the House to give an affirmative Resolution. In point of fact, oxalic acid is subject to key industry duty. The formality of taking it off the Free List is, therefore, but a formality, and the House would wish to have the Resolution properly affirmed.
With regard to the Additional Import Duties (No. 32) Order, this deals with knives and imposes a duty of 2s. per dozen knives and 1s. per dozen blades or blanks, in place of an existing duty of 20 per cent. wherever these specific duties are higher. The knives are knives other than those for use in machines, with one or more blades made wholly or partly of iron or steel. This is a Sheffield trade. It is thought that there are about 10,000 workpeople employed in the cutlery industry. Imports come principally from Germany and Japan and, as is the case with other Japanese imports into this country, they have expanded very rapidly

recently. The level of prices of the Japanese imports has declined from 1s. 7½d. to 11d. a dozen, and it is that competition of the cheaper type of knife which is undermining the home trade and the export trade in the British knife. Sheffield has succeeded in making a knife that sells at 6d., and an export knife for the same price. That trade is cut into by the Japanese articles at 11d. per dozen.
The German trade is tending to become a little more expensive rather than less expensive, and it would be interesting, were time available, to contrast the difference between the character of the German and Japanese exports to this country. I am able to show that the export trade from Sheffield has lost as a result of these cheap importations. I have the particulars of the trade in these articles of each country, and the totals. I imagine that the House will not want to be worried with the details of them. It is another instance of where a trade in this country that has been carefully built up to the great advantage of the local workpeople is finding itself undermined by an attempt on behalf of one or other foreign country to capture the market by sending goods here regardless of cost.

10.39 p.m.

Mr. Benson: The two Orders and the explanations why these articles should be subject to a protective tariff are excellent examples of the effect on the human mind of becoming Protectionist. In the case of oxalic acid we are told that the reason it has been taken off the Free List and why an import duty of 33⅓ per cent. is being imposed upon it—

Dr. Burgin: I am sure the hon. Member does not wish to be led astray. This Order does not impose any duty on oxalic acid at all. It is already subject to key industry duty entirely independently. All this Order does it to take something which is subject to a 33⅓ per cent. duty under time Act off the Free List under another.

Mr. Benson: Has oxalic acid been subject to protection the whole time?

Dr. Burgin: Yes, except for a short period, when an Order was made expressly to avoid the duty under the earlier Act until home production came up to the standard required.

Mr. Benson: Ah, yes, that is my point, that in order to increase the production of oxalic acid in this country they allow free imports—that is what the Minister said—

Dr. Burgin: indicated dissent.

Mr. Benson: —and as soon as production in this country has, under a system of free imports of oxalic acid, grown to a certain proportion, they then put on a duty of 33⅓ per cent. In the case of knives, it is because, apparently, the trade is going down that a duty is put on. The various reasons given by the Minister for clapping on duties reminds me very much of Gulliver's explanation of why princes went to war. His explanation to the inhabitants of Brobdingnag, I think, was that princes sometimes went to war because they had too much time, sometimes because they had too little time, sometimes they went to war because their neighbours were too strong, sometimes because their neighbours were too weak. The Minister tells us that sometimes they clap on a duty because the proportion of production in this country is increasing, sometimes because the proportion is decreasing, sometimes because our own manufacturers can compete with importers, sometimes because they cannot.
Really, I think it was most tactless of whoever was responsible for putting down these two Orders together to expect the Minister to move that two import duties be put upon two different types of article for entirely contrary and mutually destructive reasons. The Import Duties Advisory Committee are supposed to be a body of gentlemen who weigh up the problems of any particular industry and decide whether it should or should not be protected, but, apparently, if they cannot find one reason for protecting it they will find another. The Import Duties Advisory Committee, instead of being a carefully judicial body to weigh up facts, have become simply and solely a committee to give the Government some excuse for clapping on unnecessary duties.

10.43 p.m.

Mr. Messer: In my view we have tonight an illustration of one of the false premises on which this tariff system is based. In the case of oxalic acid one can see that the object, superficially, is

to protect the home producer. If that is not the reason—

Dr. Burgin: I do not want the hon. Member to fall into the error of the last speaker. This Order does not protect oxalic acid. It is already protected under the Safeguarding of Industries Act. This says that when oxalic acid coming into this country is chargeable with a duty of 33⅓ per cent. as a chemical under an Act which is outside the Import Duties Act altogether, it is ridiculous that it should remain on a Free List under another Act of Parliament. That is all it does. It does not alter the duty on oxalic acid at all.

Mr. Messer: Neither does it alter the fact, and it is the fact which I want to bring home to the House, that this tariff on oxalic acid increases the price of it and, in consequence, makes dearer the raw material of a big industry. Oxalic acid is used for many things. It is not merely the raw material of the undertaker; it is the raw material of furniture makers, joiners and shop-fitters. It is used as a bleaching agent by french polishers and, after splitting, by those whose work is renovation. In the development which has taken place in those industries, additional burdens and difficulties have been placed in their way. The advent of metal shop-fronts and of metal furniture, and the difficulties in which french polishers and painters have had to compete with the new cullulose, have made it urgently necessary that the raw materials of their trade should be cheaper and not more expensive. It may be true that the Order does not specifically do this, but it illustrates the point that the protective tariff put upon this raw material injures another trade.

10.46 p.m.

Mr. A. V. Alexander: Just before we let this Order go, I want to say that I thoroughly agree with the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benson) as to the diversity of argument which it suits the Parliamentary Secretary to use when he presents these Orders from time to time to the House. I support also the hon. Member for South Tottenham (Mr. Messer) in the protest with regard to oxalic acid, which is an important raw material not only in the trades which the hon. Member mentioned but in relation to certain types of manufacture in some of


which I happen to be interested. It is no use the Parliamentary Secretary simply saying that the Order has no effect. Unless the Order be capable of still further explanation, it is a fact that oxalic acid will be automatically removed, if the Order is passed, from the Free List.

Dr. Burgin: It being subject to 33⅓ per cent. duty under another Act.

Mr. Alexander: It is being removed from the Free List under the Import Duties Act. Is it to be subject to the suspension of the operation of the flat rate?

Dr. Burgin: So long as it is subject to the Key Industries Act it is not subject to this Act at all, and the only reason why I have to bring this Order to the attention of the House is that if the Government exempted oxalic acid in the future from the Key Industries Duty it would then, under the Order, become automatically subject to the To per cent. At the moment, the Order does nothing but remove an entry in a Schedule, but it would be within the power of the Government to exempt oxalic acid from the Key Industries Duty. If the Order were made and I had previously removed it from the Free List, it would then be liable to 10 per cent. duty.

Mr. Alexander: If there were some further Amendment of the position of this Duty under the Key Industries Act, the Government would have passed in advance a duty of 10 per cent. under the 1932 Act.

Dr. Burgin: That is not the intention.

Mr. Alexander: It is a little difficult to understand why the House should be troubled with it if the Government have no such intention. There is something far more sinister behind this than the mere wiping out of a line of this sort. With regard to the second Order, we have had one illumination from the Parliamentary Secretary, although he was commendably brief. He talked about the position in regard to that very important section of the Sheffield cutlery industry which deals with knives. We are asked to increase the duty on knives in such a way that, if the Parliamentary Secretary had not spoken, we should not know the size or weight of the duty. We are told now

that knives come into this country and can be bought, at the wholesale price, for so cheap a sum as 11d. per dozen. The duty under the old Order was 20 per cent. But the duty in the new Order is 2s. per dozen, a specific duty. So that the old formula of the old advocate of tariff reform that 10 per cent. was about the rate of duty, has resolved itself in the case of these knives to 208 per cent.
I have here a knife. I should think that at the time when I first represented Sheffield in the House of Commons, the quality of Sheffield knives spoke to the world of the value of Sheffield workmanship. To-day there is an exact replica, marked "Made in Sheffield," of a cheap imported article which used to be sold in Woolworth's. These cheap knives are now apparently made in England by the same people who made this cheap and nasty knife abroad. They are marked "Made in Sheffield," advertising to the world what marvellous products can be made in Sheffield. I know of nothing which is more detrimental to the name of Sheffield cutlery than that knife, which has been transferred to be made by a foreign firm in this country, and to advertise it as a typical example of British craftsmanship. Because of that kind of thing and because we are being challenged by a still further cheapening, we are asked to pass a duty of 208 per cent. in order to protect this cheap and nasty knife. There might be some case for asking for more protection for a knife of a different character, of real craftsmanship.

Dr. Burgin: There is no competition there.

Mr. Alexander: A specific duty is to go on all knives. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary will explain. I have read the Schedule fairly carefully and I would like him to explain if I am wrong. As I understand the Schedule it is to apply to knives of one blade or more. If the other knives do not want the protection I want to know why the Import Duties Advisory Committee are recommending it. Surely the Parliamentary Secretary ought to know the case better than that. Having listened to his earlier very short speech of explanation, I am less inclined than I was to let this duty go. Unless he can give us some better explanation I shall be very inclined to resist the Motion.

10.55 p.m.

Dr. Burgin: A Minister who receives deputations from hon. Members opposite as to how to deal with imports from Japan may be pardoned in feeling some surprise that, when he tries to deal with imports from Japan, he is met with the kind of arguments that have been used. I think the right hon. Gentleman is right in saying that the Order will apply to all knives. I was equally right in saying that there is no effective competition, and by that we mean no effective import of the high quality knife. The House will like to know that the enormous increase in these imports from Japan has been shown by the fact that, in the six months from July to December of last year, 130,169 dozen of these knives came in from Japan alone, at wholesale prices of under 1d. apiece. We are dealing with a trade employing 10,000 people, which claims to have a definite percentage of the home trade and a definite percentage of the export trade from this country to the Dominions. That percentage of the home trade and of the export trade to the Dominions has been decreasing as the result of these cheap importations, and it is quite natural that, on the demand of the industry, after searching inquiry, an Order should be made putting a specific duty instead of an ad valorem duty upon these particular imports. That is the whole object of the recommendation of the Import Duties Advisory Committee.
As regards oxalic acid, I accept what has been said by those who are experienced in various industries as to where oxalic acid is used. It is also used, of course, in the textile industries among others. The total consumption of oxalic acid is about 1,000 tons a year. It used until recently to be supplied exclusively by factories in Germany and the Netherlands; it is now supplied from Widnes and London.

10.57 p.m.

Sir P. Harris: The House is now being asked to pass a system of duties in accordance with what has become an invariable practice of the Import Duties Advisory Committee and carried out by the Government, namely, to go in for the system of specific duties. That means that the cheap articles used by poor people with low wages are subject to a very much higher rate of tax than the

more expensive luxury articles used by the well-to-do. Almost every one of these recommendations that is brought before the House follows that line. This proposal is that there should be a specific duty of 2s. per dozen or 20 per cent., whichever is the greater. In other words, while an expensive knife is only subject to a duty of 20 per cent. a cheap knife—and people only buy cheap knives when they are poor and cannot afford a knife of better quality—are to be subject to a duty of 207 per cent. I call that a very mean policy.

Sir Geoffrey Ellis: The hon. Baronet forgets that, if this duty is not passed, a great many very poor people will have to go without wages.

10.58 p.m.

Mr. Magnay: There is another point of view that the House should have in mind in considering this matter. There are millions of boys in this country who could not pay 1s. for a pen-knife, but who would go to Woolworths, where I got this knife which I have here, and have one in each pocket; while over and above that there are thousands of men who will be employed and the industry will be safeguarded in other places.

Resolved,
That the Import Duties (Exemptions) (No. 8) Order, 1936, dated the eleventh day of December, nineteen hundred and thirty-six, made by the Treasury under the Import Duties Act, 1932, a copy of which was presented to this House on the said eleventh day of December, nineteen hundred and thirty-six, be approved.

Resolved,
That the Additional Import Duties (No. 32) Order, 1936, dated the twenty-first day of December, nineteen hundred and thirty-six, made by the Treasury under the Import Duties Act, 1932, a copy of which was presented to this House on the nineteenth day of January, nineteen hundred and thirty-seven, be approved."—[Dr. Burgin.]

DEBTS CLEARING OFFICES AND IMPORT RESTRICTIONS ACT, 1934.

10.59 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Colville: I beg to move,
That the Clearing Office (Rumania) Amendment Order, 1936, dated the seventeenth day of December, nineteen hundred


and thirty-six, made by the Treasury under the Debts Clearing Offices and Import Restrictions Act, 1934, a copy of which was presented to this House on the nineteenth day of January, nineteen hundred and thirty-seven, be approved.
With the permission of the House I will introduce this Order and the next Order on the Paper, leaving the House free of course to take a decision on each of them separately. It can be done in a very few words. The first Order is the Clearing Office (Rumania) Order. An agreement was negotiated with the Rumanian Government on 5th December last, providing that the deduction or refund of non-sterling charges may be allowed from debts payable to the Clearing Office. Under the heading of charges incurred otherwise than in sterling fall such charges as those commonly incurred in Poland and Germany with respect to the carriage of Rumanian goods to this country by the land route. It was found that trade was being interfered with owing to the inability to allow for charges incurred otherwise than in sterling. Hence the new agreement was negotiated, and this Order gives effect to it.
If I might turn to the second Order, it relates to Spain. The Anglo-Spanish clearing was working successfully up to the outbreak of the civil war, and the arrears were surely and slowly being liquidated, but the civil war gravely interfered with the work of the clearing. The Madrid Government declared a moratorium on all payments in Spain, the Spanish exchange office in effect ceased to operate for a time, and difficulties of communication between London and that office were very great. Moreover, the Spanish exchange office in Madrid was entirely cut off from that part of the Spanish territory controlled by the rebel authorities. Events moved on, and as time went on it became clear that to maintain the obligation on the United Kingdom debtor to make his payments to the London clearing office was bound to interfere with trade. On the other hand, to suspend this obligation would be unwelcome to creditors in the United Kingdom who had outstanding debts in Spain, and the opportunity was taken of consulting with representatives of the interests concerned. The view expressed was that in all the circumstances it was desirable to suspend the clearing in the interests of current trade, always provided

that an understanding was arrived at with the Spanish authorities that liquidation of outstanding debts would be resumed at the earliest possible moment.
It was decided in December last that on the whole the only practicable solution of the many difficulties was to suspend the clearing procedure altogether for the time being, and on 17th December my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade announced that the Government had decided that the clearing procedure should be suspended and that, under a Treasury Order which was being issued on that day, debts due in respect of Spanish goods imported into the United Kingdom after 18th December are not payable to the Anglo-Spanish Clearing Office. That is the Treasury Order for which approval is now being sought. On the question of liquidating outstanding debts, Article 2 of the Order directs the Clearing Office to place in a reserve account sterling already collected and due to be collected in respect of Spanish goods imported into the United Kingdom before 19th December, 1936. The sterling is to remain in the reserve account until such time as a further Treasury Order is issued regarding its distribution. The Government fully recognise that a further Treasury Order as regards distribution of this sterling should be made as soon as possible, and this is a matter on which discussions with the Spanish Government are actively proceeding. It is not now possible to say more, but the question is being actively pursued, and a further statement will be made as soon as possible.

Resolved,
That the Clearing Office (Rumania) Amendment Order, 1936, dated the seventeenth day of December, nineteen hundred and thirty-six, made by the Treasury under the Debts Clearing Offices and Import Restrictions Act, 1934, a copy of which was presented to this House on the nineteenth day of January, nineteen hundred and thirty-seven, be approved.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the Clearing Office (Spain) Amendment No. 2 Order, 1936, dated the seventeenth day of December, nineteen hundred and thirty-six, made by the Treasury under the Debts Clearing Offices and Import Restrictions Act, 1934, a copy of which was presented to this House on the eighteenth day of December, nineteen hundred and thirty-six, be approved."—[Lieut.-Colonel Colville.]

11.5 p.m.

Mr. R. Gibson: I desire to draw attention to a matter affecting a constituent of mine who is in a very unfortunate position, to say no more. A certain Mr. William Dick was carrying on business in Greenock as an agent, among others, for a Newfoundland firm which had dealings with interests in Spain. By the end of June last there was owing to this Newfoundland firm a sum of over £11,000. On 9th July there was received in Greenock a cheque from the Anglo-Spanish Clearing House amounting to £5,042 19s. 9d. made payable to the firm with which Mr. Dick was carrying on business. Unfortunately he died just prior to the cheque being received. It was returned to the Clearing Office at London, with a request that a new cheque should be issued in favour of Mr. Dick's executrix, and there accompanied the request a guarantee that the confirmation of the executrix would be applied for as soon as possible, that being the corresponding proceeding to the taking of probate in England. The cheque was accepted in London, but in my submission must be taken to be accepted subject to the condition under which it was sent, that a new cheque made payable to the executrix would be sent in return. No such cheque was sent and the sum has remained in London and has not been sent to Greenock. That is a serious matter, not so much for Greenock as for Newfoundland, because it would immediately be transmitted there. Judging from remarks made in the House in the last few days business interests in Newfoundland are in urgent need of money. This is a serious injustice. A new article is to be substituted for Article 8 of the principal Order and it begins in these terms:
Any sums standing to the credit of the Clearing Office by virtue of the principal Order at the coming into force of this Order shall be transferred to a reserve fund.
That sum, whatever it is, includes this sum of £5,042 19s. 9d., which ought not to be standing to that credit at all. As soon as the original cheque was sent to Greenock there was clearly an intention that it should be honoured and, accordingly, there was, notionally at any rate, a segregation of that sum from the fund standing to the credit of the Clearing House in London. That sum should have been kept apart. If it was not kept apart but remained apparently to the

credit of the Clearing Office, then, it was subject to a trust and could not and ought not to be held to be covered by the terms of this Order at all. These being the facts, the sum of £5,042 19s. 9d. has been improperly detained in London. That is a serious matter even from the mere point of view of interest, because at five per cent. for seven months, the interest on that sum is already £147. But it is a much more serious matter to the Newfoundland business people who are in urgent need of money and who will reckon money at a higher rate than five per cent. Accordingly, I suggest to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman that he should give an undertaking that this sum should be segregated from the sums standing to the credit of the Clearing Office and be transmitted to Newfoundland, and then the Order be approved. Failing such an undertaking from the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, I suggest to the House generally that, in view of this very grave injustice, it should not approve of the Order, but should divide against the Minister on this very clear injustice.

11.13 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Colville: The hon. and learned Member for Greenock (Mr. R. Gibson) suggests the rather severe method of dealing with the situation, of refusing to approve of the Order because of this particular case. The Order relates to a very wide range of trades, and there is a very general demand among traders generally that the Order should be passed in order to enable trade to flow with Spain at the present time. The point he raised is a difficult technical point—a legal point really—and the advice which the Clearing Office received was, that they could not, in fact, make the payment until a satisfactory discharge could be secured. Without going into long details at this time of the night, that discharge could not be secured until the confirmation was granted by the Scottish Court, and this was sealed on 11th August. By that period payment had been suspended on account of the outbreak of the civil war, a circumstance which nobody could have foreseen, and payment had been totally suspended, which was a most unfortunate situation among those who expected to receive money. The Clearing Office could be sued if it distributed money wrongly, and it could not have acted other than it did.
It is a legal matter, and one which those interested, if they desired, could test in the courts, but I suggest that any such action would be drastic. What I indicated in my speech in moving the Order was that, as soon as possible, it is intended to recommence payment, when it can be agreed with the Spanish Government—and negotiations are actively proceeding just now—out of that sterling account. The parties for whom the hon. and learned Member speaks will, of course, then receive their payment. I am advised—and I have no reason at all to doubt the advice—that the Clearing Office could not properly have paid this out without receiving a sufficient discharge, which was not forthcoming until after the date when payments had been suspended owing to the outbreak of civil war.

Mr. R. Gibson: Was not payment made when the first cheque for £5,000 was sent?

It must have been paid then. That cheque was sent back subject to a condition which should have been honourably observed, otherwise the cheque should have been returned. If the cheque had been sent back those concerned in Greenock would have had their own means and remedy to get payment as soon as confirmation was got. If they had retained the cheque in their own hands that could have been done as a simple matter of Scottish law. That being the situation in Scotland, it should not be altered by the fact that when the cheque was sent to the Clearing Office in London it was improperly retained there. The Clearing Office should not benefit by what they have done.

Question put.

The House divided: Ayes, 144; Noes, 69.

Division No. 65.]
AYES.
[11.16 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Furness, S. N.
Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Fyfe, D. P. M.
Owen, Major G.


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir J.
Palmer, G. E. H.


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'kn hd)
Gluckstein, L. H.
Penny, Sir G.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)
Petherick, M.


Aske, Sir R. W.
Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.


Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.
Grimston, R. V.
Radford, E. A.


Balfour, G. (Hampstead)
Guest, Maj. Hon. O. (C'mb'rw'll, N.W.)
Raikes, H. V. A. M.


Barolay-Harvey, Sir C. M.
Guy, J. C. M.
Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Hanbury, Sir C.
Ramsbotham, H.


Blindell, Sir J.
Hannah, I. C.
Ramsden, Sir E.


Bowyer, Capt. Sir G. E. W.
Harbord, A.
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)


Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham)
Harris, Sir P. A.
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)


Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.)
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)


Bull, B. B.
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. J. W. (Ripon)
Remer, J. R.


Burgin, Dr. E. L.
Holmes, J. S.
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)


Butler, R. A.
Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.
Ropner, Colonel L.


Cartland, J. R. H.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)


Carver, Major W. H.
Hudson, R. S. (Southport)
Rowlands, G.


Cary, R. A.
Hunter, T.
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.


Castlereagh, Viscount
Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)
Salt, E. W.


Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Jones, L. (Swansea W.)
Scott, Lord William


Clarke, Lt.-Col. R. S. (E. Grinstead)
Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)
Selley, H. R.


Colville, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. D. J.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Law, R. K. (Hull, S.W.)
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)


Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)
Leckie, J. A.
Shepperson, Sir E. W.


Courthope, Col. Sir G. L.
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)


Craven-Ellis, W.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Gritchley, A.
Llewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J.
Spears, Brigadier-General E. L.


Crooke, J. S.
Loftus, P. C.
Spens, W. P.


Cross, R. H.
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Storey, S,


Crowder, J. F. E.
MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.
Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.


Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)
M'Connell, Sir J.
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Doland, G. F.
McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)
McKie, J. H.



Dugdale, Major T. L.
Macnamara, Capt. J. R. J.
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Duncan, J. A. L.
Magnay, T.
Turton, R. H.


Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Makins, Brig.-Gen. E.
Walker-Smith, Sir J.


Ellis, Sir G.
Mander, G. le M.
Warrender, Sir V.


Elliston, Capt. G. S.
Manningham-Buller, Sir M.
Wells, S. R.


Emmott, C. E. G. C.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Erskine-Hill, A. G.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Wragg, H.


Evans, Capt. A. (Cardiff, S.)
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Wright, Squadron-Leader J. A. C.


Everard, W. L.
Moreing, A. C.
Young, A. S. L. (Particle)


Fildes, Sir H.
Morris-Jones, Sir Henry



Findlay, Sir E.
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Fleming, E. L.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
Lient.-Colonel Sir A. Lambert


Foot, D. M.
Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.
Ward and Mr. James Stuart.


Fremantle, Sir F. E.
Nail, Sir J.





NOES.


Adamson, w. M.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Pritt, D. N.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'Isbr.)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Richards, R. (Wrexham)


Anderson, F. (Whitchaven)
Kelly, W. T.
Ridley, G.


Barnes, A. J.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Ritson, J.


Barr, J.
Lathan, G.
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)


Benson, G.
Leonard, W.
Rowsen, G.


Bevan, A.
Leslie, J. R.
Sexton. T. M.


Broad, F. A.
Logan, D. G.
Silverman, S. S.


Burke, W. A.
Lunn, W.
Simpson, F. B.


Cape, T.
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Chater, D.
McGhee, H. G.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Ede, J. C.
MacLaren, A.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-Ie-Sp'ng)


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Maclean, N.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H
MacMillan, M. (Western Isles)
Tinker, J. J.


Gardner, B. W.
Mainwaring, W. H.
Watson, W. McL.


Gibbins, J.
Marshall, F.
Whiteley, W.


Gibson, R. (Greenock)
Messer, F.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Milner, Major J.
Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)


Grenfell, D. R.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Muff, G.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Oliver, G. H.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Hicks, E. G.
Pethiek-Lawrence, F. W.



Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Potts, J.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Jagger, J.
Price, M. P.
Mr. John and Mr. Mathers.


Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

EAST INDIA LOANS BILL.

Read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House, for Thursday.—[Captain Margesson.]

DISEASES OF FISH BILL [Lords].

Order for Second Reading read.

11.26 p.m.

The Minister of Pensions (Mr. Ramsbotham): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
This Bill has come down to us from another place. It is comparatively short and almost, although not quite, non-contentious. Its main object is to control the disease called furunculosis, which particularly affects salmon and trout. The disease was first recognised in this country about 30 years ago, and was almost certainly imported from the Continent. It is a horrible disease, and in recent years has spread very rapidly through many of the salmon and trout rivers of England, Wales and Scotland, and has caused very heavy mortality among fish. In 1934, a Bill came down to this House from another place very similar to this Bill, but differing in certain details which excited some opposition, and although it received a Second Reading, there was not time to pass it through this House. Since that time, the provisions of the 1934 Bill have been carefully discussed with all the interested parties who objected to certain of its details, and the Bill now before the House, though substantially the same

Measure as the 1934 Bill, has been purged of those details which aroused opposition at that time. The objections of the parties interested have been met, and there is now a general consensus of opinion in favour of the Bill.
I would like to say one or two words about the Clauses of the Bill. Clause provides for (a) complete prohibition in all circumstances of imports of live salmon and trout, and (b) for prohibition, except under licence, of the importation of live fresh-water fish, other than salmon and trout, and of live eggs of salmon and trout and of any kind of fresh-water fish. The object of that is to prevent further introduction of the disease from abroad, and it is welcomed in all quarters as a very necessary measure. Clause 2 empowers the Minister of Agriculture—and in Scotland the Secretary of State—to declare as an infected area any waters found to be infected with furunculosis, and to forbid or control the transportation of fish, eggs or foodstuffs for fish from that area. Clause 5 makes provision for the Minister, on the demand of any fishery board or occupier (which includes a fish farmer) to cause his fishing waters to be examined in order to discover whether they are or are not infected, and to furnish a report to him. Clause 4 deals with the precautions to be imposed when infection is suspected. In the case of fish farmers, the inspector may make a standstill order and no fish, eggs of fish or foodstuffs for fish may be transported from the farm without the Minister's permission until the lapse of 16 days, unless a decision has been reached earlier.


Clause 6 provides for certain powers of inspection to be given to inspectors and other authorised persons, and the other Clauses are mainly machinery Clauses.
I hope the House will realise that the immediate aim of this Bill is the control, and, if possible, the eradication, of a disease already prevalent in our inland fisheries, a disease which has done a great deal of harm, which is a serious menace to their prosperity, and which, I think, the House would wish to take all steps to eradicate.

11.29 p.m.

Mr. D. Grenfell: Hon. Members on this side of the House approve of the principle of this Bill and approve of it being read a Second time, but we do so on the understanding that the Government are prepared to agree that the Financial Resolution shall stand over for more leisurely consideration. On that undertaking, we agree to the Second Reading. We are anxious that this very serious disease shall be tackled, because we have seen rivers in which the fish have been devastated, and the sight is a very gruesome one indeed. It is very bad for the countryside that there should be this destruction of the fish life in our rivers. I do not consider that in the Bill as it stands the financial provision made for dealing with the evil is adequate, but I do not propose to go into that question at the present stage, and with that comment I invite my hon. Friends to support the Second Reading.

11.31 p.m.

Major Hills: I, also, support the Bill, and I wish to thank the Minister for having introduced it. When a previous Bill dealing with this subject was before the House, a good many of us saw faults in it and pointed them out to the Minister in charge, and our criticisms have all been met as far as the present Bill is concerned. This is, in my judgment, a better Bill than the previous Measure, and it will, I believe, do the work for which it is intended. The disease of furunculosis among fish is so infectious that fish coming from the sea into fresh water may be infected within a few hours and the trouble is difficult to eradicate on account of the fact that so many fish may be carriers of the disease. There are one or two points on which I intend to say something in Committee, if I

have the privilege of being a member of the Committee which deals with the Bill, but I support the Bill generally, and hope that the House will give it a Second Reading.

Question put, and agreed to,

CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 1) BILL.

Read a Second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House for Thursday.

GENEVA CONVENTION BILL [Lords].

Order for Second Reading read.

11.32 p.m.

Dr. Burgin: I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
This Bill has already been passed in another place. Its object is to give effect to certain obligations assumed by the United Kingdom in an International Convention made at Geneva in 1929. It is a simple Bill of four Clauses, one of which is the short Title. Clause 1, the principal Clause, renders it unlawful for anyone, without the authority of the Board of Trade, to use in a trade or business, or for any other purpose, the arms of the Swiss Confederation or a colourable imitation of that design, or any design being a colourable imitation of the emblem of the Red Cross, or any words so nearly resembling the words "Red Cross" or "Geneva Cross" as to be capable of being understood as referring to the Red Cross emblem. Sub-section (2) deals with proceedings and penalties, and Sub-section (3) with protection for existing marks. Clause 2 relates to Australia and Clause 3 contains provision as to other parts of the British Empire. I think the House would like to know that no proceedings under the Measure can be taken without the consent of the Attorney-General.

11.34 p.m.

Mr. Grenfell: We would have liked more time to examine this Bill. I recognise that it would not be possible within the limits of the Bill to make the speech which I would desire to make on this subject. I would wish to call attention to certain very grave derelictions of


duty on the part of nations—even members of the League of Nations—in connection with the acknowledgment of the Red Cross, where it has been distinctly used as a sign that the ambulances and other conveyances so marked were engaged in the activities which the Red Cross is intended to cover. This Bill proposes to safeguard the possibility of conveyances being marked in such a way as to be liable to be mistaken for Red Cross conveyances. It seeks to reserve a monopoly in that marking for those who are engaged in carrying out the purposes for which the Red Cross is intended in time of war. I think, however, that something more ought to be done in the Bill in reference to the safeguarding of vehicles appliances and so forth, which are clearly marked with the Red Cross and are employed in the succour of the wounded and the removal of dead and wounded from the battlefield. We know that during the recent Abyssinian campaign there were many serious violations of the international agreement to recognise the Red Cross institution. This is not the time to remind the House of those violations in detail but similar violations have occurred in what is now termed the civil war in Spain. Examples of the grossest violation of the immunity of the Red Cross have been brought to my notice. There was the case of the Scottish medical ambulance column which appeared between the two lines in Spain on one occasion, when an aeroplane deliberately set it on fire and destroyed it knowing that it was a Red Cross ambulance

legibly marked and visible at any reasonable distance. That was a violation of the Red Cross. When we examine this Bill later we shall move amendments to include in the Bill more direct safeguards of the rights of the Red Cross in the purpose for which it was originally intended.

Mr. R. Gibson: Are proceedings competent in Scotland? If so, will they be with the consent of the Lord Advocate?

Dr. Burgin: In England the consent of the Attorney-General has to be obtained, and in Northern Ireland that of the Attorney-General for Northern Ireland. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to deal with this point on the Committee stage.

DEAF CHILDREN (SCHOOL ATTENDANCE) BILL.

Read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after Half-past Eleven of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Twenty-four Minutes before Twelve o'Clock.